We all depend on chemistry-based products during summertime, but we should hope the drive for profit does not overtake the drive for safety, says Helen Sharman.
Summer is really underway now. I know this because the queue of traffic that is usually on my road between seven and nine every weekday morning has been absent for a few weeks. Families, released from the shackles of school term time, have joined the mass exodus of city folk to the countryside. Those of us still at home seem to be have been using every minute of dry weather as though it is our last to repave the driveway, picnic in the park or, in my case, chop back the jungle that should be a garden.
Wherever we are, the summer makes a dent in the stash of chemicals most of us keep in our bathroom cabinets as we reach for the sunscreen and various lotions and potions to get us through hay fever, insect bites and athlete’s foot, not to mention the deodorant and antiperspirant, without which modern life would be much less pleasant.
These household items are some of the many successes of the chemical industry: we are grateful to buy them relatively cheaply and to use them frequently over many years; they are widely regarded as safe; companies make money and the government is happy. But when a blast of advertising heralds the launch of a new product, how sure are we that the product and its manufacturing process are safe in the long term?
Many products and the materials used in their manufacture are merely variations of ones already tried and tested so we have reliable data that can be applied. The development of new products includes research into safety and there are industry standards and legislation to protect the consumer. We can use those products in our bathroom cabinets with confidence.
EU law applies the precautionary principle, which states that if there are reasonable scientific grounds for believing that a new product or process may not be safe for the public or to the environment it should not be introduced until we have convincing evidence that the risks are small and are outweighed by the benefits.
However, scientific evidence is incomplete and uncertain and there may be risks associated with not introducing something new. Decisions have to be made.
While many good decisions go unnoticed, we are acutely aware of the bad ones: cigarettes; CFCs; phthalates in plastic toys; new variant CJD from feeding cows meat and bone meal; and even more. I worry that in our greedy rush to make money in a global market, regulators increasingly are allowing new products and technology to go ahead before long term issues can be assessed properly.
The precautionary principle puts the blame for unsafe products at the doors of the organisations which created the problems. Unfortunately, this ‘do or die’ market encourages corporations to take too much risk and governments are happy to share the profits of success while not being liable for the costs of failure.
What concerns me most are the long term effects on the environment, where cause and effect are difficult to link at the best of times. Are we rushing into green technology without thoroughly evaluating the impact of using new materials like the rare earths and organometallic compounds? Nanotechnology is likely to play an important role in solving the world energy crisis yet there is currently limited understanding of the associated health and safety risks. The Health Protection Agency is developing a new research centre in the UK to study the possible health effects of human exposure to nanoparticles, which is to be applauded.
The biggest danger will be when a new green technology comes with a money-spinning product. It will be a huge force pushing regulators to permit mass production with no authority to pull those regulators back into place.
We live in a time of unprecedented scientific discovery; we need an unprecedented method to ensure innovation is implemented with a global view of the long term effects. If nothing else, the debate about nuclear waste has been going on for long enough to make us realise that some things should be out of the jurisdiction of individual states.
The UN needs to debate where lines should be drawn and then enforce compliance - no messing, no time wasting, no exceptions. That will safeguard the environment and allow me to carry on with the gardening, knowing that my stings can be alleviated with a clear conscience when I reach for the antihistamine cream in the bathroom.