Introduction

In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Environmental Health Sciences announced 30 million dollars of funding for research on the hormone disrupting effects of bisphenol a (BPA).1 BPA is a building block of polycarbonate plastic and a widely used raw material for resins and coatings. The research focuses on the contribution of low-dose exposures of BPA to obesity, diabetes, reproductive disorders, asthma, cardiovascular disease and various cancers. This research represents a critical contribution to our scientific understanding of endocrine disrupting chemicals; however not a single dollar was committed to studying safer alternatives to BPA.

BPA exemplifies the limits of our current reactive, chemical-by-chemical approach to chemical assessment and management. Under this framework, chemicals are generally assumed safe and action is not warranted until ‘sound science’ can adequately characterise the causes and mechanisms of effects on ecosystems or human health. As a result, decision making becomes mired in debates over mechanisms and relevance of animal studies. There is an implicit incentive—for firms and scientists alike—to ‘manufacture’ uncertainty to prolong regulatory debates, given the burdens placed on government to act.2 This framework is inefficient and inadequate to protect public health. A more productive approach would focus on the search for safer alternatives to chemicals that have raised plausible health concerns.