Broadsheets

Here is a selection of some of the articles I have written for British national dailies, largely focusing on environmental issues.

Why cyclists sometimes opt for the pavement
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/15/cyclists-pavement-fine?
The Guardian, Comment piece, May 2011

Death by dangerous cycling law would not improve road safety
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/12/death-by-dangerous-cycling-law?
The Guardian, Comment piece, April 2011

 


We Must Learn to Live with Wind Power - To keep our lights on, Britain needs every method it can find to generate clean electricity, says Erin Gill

The Daily Telegraph, 26 March 2009,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5056588/We-must-learn-to-live-with-wind-power.html

 

 

The zealous backing given to wind farms this week by Ed Miliband, the Climate Change Secretary, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, has stirred up the usual protests about the beautiful British landscape being papered over with metallic monstrosities. But arguing against wind energy is, well, a waste of energy. Denouncing wind turbines in favour of another technology, such as nuclear, tidal and wave, solar or even "cleaner" coal is missing the point. The argument is over.

 

No credible wind enthusiast would deny that turbines have their faults. But let's not exaggerate: they don't bring the risk of catastrophe that comes with nuclear power, the favoured option of the anti-wind set. Yet to focus on just one form of energy misses the point: wind isn't the answer, just as nuclear isn't the answer. To keep the lights on, and the photocopiers humming, we need any and every method of generating cleaner electricity that we can find, whether it's liquefied natural gas, new nuclear power stations, the harnessing of tidal power, or those pesky turbines.

 

As biologists have long recognised, and as the Government's energy policy wonks have recently had to accept, there is strength in diversity. Rely too heavily on one source of electricity generation and you increase the risk of total system failure if anything goes wrong with your prized solution. The threats of what scientists call "dangerous climate change", and geopolitical fears about security – in the form, for a start, of Vladimir Putin – have had the Government scrambling to rethink its strategy.

 

There are two standard objections to wind turbines. The first is that wind farms generate negligible amounts of electricity, and cost more carbon to produce than they save. This is a myth: the typical 3MW turbine powers 1,700 homes annually and "pays back" the energy – and saves the carbon emissions – expended to manufacture, transport, install and commission it in a mere six months.

 

The next objection is aesthetic: we don't want turbines in our back yards, or in the picturesque areas we like to visit. And yes, there is a problem: many of the windiest parts of Britain, such as the Lake District or north Wales, are also the most stunning (by contrast to the windswept parts of Germany and Denmark, where turbines can be installed without demur).

 

But the goal is not to carpet the land in turbines: some landscapes need to be protected, just as we need to check that the local birds and bats – and humans – are not overly inconvenienced. The future is not a vast forest of wind turbines obliterating every prized view, nor is it a wind turbine in every bungalow back garden. The goal is, simply, for wind energy to provide some of the electricity we need.

 

And surely we can all agree that some places are suitable for wind turbines. Not every stretch of this green and pleasant land is so awesome as to require a moratorium on turbines: if it is, why have invasive road and housing developments, hulking power stations and the architectural monstrosities that are our major supermarkets been built willy-nilly? Give me a wind turbine over another Tesco Extra any day.

 

In fact, wind turbines can add sparkle to lacklustre locations. Ford's production site at Dagenham has been immeasurably improved by two turbines, while the grim landscape of Avonmouth has also been brightened by wind power. I also like the idea of wind being used to power sewage treatment works, as Thames Water is planning. We are going to have to learn to live with the turbines – and who knows? We may even come to like them.

 

 

Dust Junkies - Pollution: Pesticides sprayed on to crops in US cotton fields are finding their way into the UK food chain. Erin Gill reports on a menace in the skies
The Guardian, Wednesday 13 January 1999, guardian.co.uk

 

 

Visiting California's San Joaquin Valley during the cotton harvest is a frightening experience. Once you realise that the planes flying low in the sky and close to roads are spraying some of the most carcinogenic defoliants known to chemistry, it is difficult to refrain from panicking.

Located inland and north of Los Angeles, the San Joaquin Valley is the state's agricultural breadbasket. In addition to producing high quality cotton, farmers grow a host of food crops. It's a valley run by agri-business - most of the huge farms are owned or financed by multinational corporations.

The environmental damage that has taken place after only a few decades of chemical-based farming is worrying because even if the UK does not eat much food grown in the San Joaquin Valley, chemical residue from its cotton farms is present in the UK food chain.

The path that runs between Californian cotton farms and the food that we eat is paved with pesticides. Cotton is one of the most heavily-sprayed field crops in the world and nowhere more so than in California. In 1995, an average of 14.15lb of pesticides were used per acre on Californian cotton. Now, there are two genetically-modified cotton varieties engineered to withstand even greater levels. Of the top nine pesticides used on Californian cotton, five are known carcinogens and many are linked to birth defects and reproductive damage.

Not surprisingly, farm workers and their families, as well as local residents not involved in farming complain of side effects. The most common are persistent flu-like symptoms during the period when crop-dusters - the planes that spray defoliants to strip cotton plants of their leaves - operate.

'Cows feed on cotton seed and therefore industrial cotton production is also poisoning steak eaters,' explains Will Allen, an organic farmer and force behind the Sustainable Cotton Project. In fact, it's not just steak eaters who are being exposed to cotton's pesticide residue. Anyone who consumes dairy products and processed foods like biscuits, cakes and crisps may also be at risk. Cotton seed is imported into the UK in two forms: as a cake or meal for use as feed to beef, dairy cattle and pigs, and as unrefined oil.

In 1997, 35,000 tonnes of cottonseed cake/meal were imported into the UK and sold to farmers. The amount of cotton seed oil is even higher. It is forecast that by this year's end just under 100,000 tonnes of imported cottonseed oil will have been refined by UK oil processors for use in food production.
The hope of the Sustainable Cotton Project is that if people learn about the dangers of conventional cotton production perhaps they will lend their support to the fledgling organic cotton industry. Based in the San Joaquin Valley, among genetically-modified fields and settlement ponds, the project helps cotton farmers reduce their use of pesticides. It also encourages full-scale switch to organic if a farmer can secure adequate loans.

In a country where a farmer needs an annual loan of $750,000 to grow 1,000 acres of cotton, the funders - not always a bank - have a lot of power. Most organic cotton farmers cannot get loans unless they have a contract already agreed with a specific buyer. Growers of conventional cotton receive loans by showing the loaning organisation a business plan detailing which pesticides and how much of each one the farmer will spray. Once the loan is agreed, the funders are still legally allowed to spray a farmer's fields against his wishes if they believe it is necessary to achieve a specified yield.

Roger and Sandy Sanders farm both conventional and organic cotton, as well as organic fruit and vegetables. Roger Sanders's first inkling of how damaging cotton pesticides are came years ago when his father's kiwi grove was destroyed by cotton defoliants drifting over from a neighbouring farm. Nonetheless, for years he continued to listen to the pesticide salespeople. 'I used a lot of pesticides but it wasn't working,' he says, referring to the resistance that insects and weeds develop to the chemicals.

It is estimated that there will be only 10,000 bales of organic cotton produced in the US in 1998. With 19 million bales of conventional cotton grown there in 1997, it's an organic drop in a pesticide ocean. But there is good news. Companies like Nike and The Gap have begun buying small amounts of organic cotton and blending it with their conventional cotton.

This change is, in a large part, the result of one company's much more risky venture. Three years ago, Patagonia, an American outdoor clothing company, switched entirely to 100 per cent organic cotton. The decision was made when their environmental assessment showed that conventionally-grown cotton is as toxic to the environment as synthetics like polyester and nylon.

'The first season we introduced an all-organic line it had many of the problems I feared - shrinkage, pilling [bobbles], lower durability,' explains Randy Harward, Patagonia's director of quality. 'But we learned more about cotton that year than in the previous 25 years. Today, the organic fabrics we produce are more durable, consistent, beautiful and much more comfortable than those before the switch to organic.'

Whether the amount of organic cotton grown in the US will increase depends on many factors, not least the tenacity of farmers like Roger and Sandy Sanders. 'I can envisage us getting better yield and us making more money than conventional growers,' says Sanders. 'I like farming this way.'

 

 

The Hard Cell - Why can't the British recycle their household batteries? A pilot project has revealed that they can, but to do so requires the political will.
The Guardian, Wednesday 19 November 2003, guardian.co.uk

 

 

When Christian and Kerstin, two Swedes, came to live in London, they got a shock. One day, Kerstin took a handful of old batteries to the chemist, just as she always did back home. She asked the man behind the counter if he would take them. He did - and promptly dumped them in the bin. That was when they realised that Britain had some catching up to do.

Scandinavians, Germans and others have long known that household batteries contain heavy metals such as zinc, cadmium, mercury and lead, and that if they're dumped in landfills those metals seep out and risk contaminating water courses and underground aquifers. These countries recycle up to 50% of their batteries, but in Britain, out of around 25,000 tonnes bought each year, just 200 tonnes are recycled - and these are sent abroad to be processed. Britain has no dedicated battery recycling plant.

However, a year-long, central, local and industry-funded pilot project in Bristol has proved that recycling household batteries is possible, and that people are keen to support it. The lessons learned will be invaluable once new EU targets for battery recycling are introduced over the next few years.

The Bristol project, which began in September 2002, was ambitious. The project consortium, which included Bristol city council, Sita environmental trust and the Department of Trade and Industry, set itself a target to collect 10 tonnes of batteries from 180,000 households in the city. It blasted the city with publicity, educating people and doing kerbside collections. The enthusiasm shown for the project was remarkable, perhaps because it was made easy for households - residents put the batteries out with their weekly collections. Instead of 10 tonnes, more than 12 tonnes were collected.

"We've shown it can be done," says project manager Isobel Downey. "The British public wants to recycle batteries, but the bulk of people will only get involved if it's made easy for them."

But the project, while successful, was costly and fraught with difficulties from the start. First came industrial action by staff working for Resource Saver, the company operating Bristol's kerbside recycling collection service when the scheme began. The "go slow" started just a few weeks after the scheme's high-profile launch, and a short strike by kerbside collectors took place later that autumn.

It did not destroy the scheme, but it seriously affected collection rates - and not just for batteries. "It has had an effect on all of our recycling tonnages for this year," says Downey.

In 2001/02, Bristol recycled about 14% of household waste, and the aim was to achieve 18% in 2002/03. Resource Saver's industrial dispute put paid to that plan, and the city has had to make do with maintaining its 2001/02 recycling rate.

The next obstacle was an announcement in February that BritanniaZinc, the Avonmouth-based zinc-smelting firm that had been reprocessing the batteries, was to cease trading. Fortunately, G&P Batteries, based in Wolverhampton, stepped in, but costs increased dramatically.

BritanniaZinc had been accepting the batteries unsorted in return for the zinc, lead and cadmium it could extract. But G&P had to manually separate them according to type and ship them to France for reprocessing. This put the price up to nearly £980 a tonne and the total cost of collecting, transport and recycling rose to roughly £7,000 a tonne - a figure guaranteed to make local authority recycling officers wince.

Downey says the price is more than other councils would have to pay, because of the costs of the publicity and education scheme it needed to quickly hit its high targets. "You could easily knock a third or two-thirds off the cost," she says. "The purpose of the pilot was to experiment, and many of the pilot's expenses were one-offs." The costs of kerbside collection, too, can often be brought down.

Greg Clementson, a director at G&P Batteries agrees that Bristol's costs are not a good indication of the true price local authorities will have to pay in the future, but he believes that the expense of reprocessing will remain high until mechanised battery sorting is available. "The UK needs one or two mechanised sorting plants, but the volume of household batteries being collected doesn't justify it yet."

So far only a handful of councils, such as Cheshire and Lancashire, offer any sort of battery collection, and fewer, such as Barnet and Bristol, offer kerbside collections. Until there is legislation demanding recycling and setting targets, few authorities are likely to prioritise batteries.

However, central and local government is aware that Europe is moving inexorably in that direction. After years of wrangling between battery manufacturers and Brussels, the EC is expected to publish a legislative proposal on battery recycling by the end of the month. This would force Britain to collect household - "single use" - batteries, although the targets haven't been decided. Local authorities would bear the brunt of the collection work, while battery manufacturers and importers would be responsible for the financial cost of reprocessing.

The Bristol pilot scheme has ended, but the council, having found ways to cut the costs, is to continue its kerbside collections. What has been proved, it seems, is the recognition that the British are not so different from the Scandinavians, and that, given the opportunity, people are willing to act, and change habits quickly.

 

 

How Toxic is Your Spa? - Everyone loves being pampered but are the ingredients as pure as you think? Erin Gill investigates
Daily Telegraph, Wednesday 26 March 2008, telegraph.co.uk

 

 

Going to a spa is all about forgetting your worries and responsibilities, letting your mind float and focusing, instead, on your body. Anyone who has emerged from a spa rejuvenated and ready to take on the world again knows that a good spa offers something genuinely valuable amid all the luxury bathrobes and poolside wicker furniture. Before you let your mind switch off, there is one niggling worry that might be worth investigating. What goes into all those body wraps, scrubs, lifts and refreshers ? Is that facial made from 100 per cent fresh papaya or are there other less natural ingredients in it too?

 

The short answer to that question is yes. In many cases the products used during spa treatments are not nearly as natural as all those references to algae and rose essence imply. Depending on what the products are designed to achieve, they may include detergents, synthetic fragrance, a range of preservatives… the list goes on. You're not being lied to about the natural ingredients, you're simply not being told about everything else that is in that delicious cream now covering you from neck to toe. And you won't find product ingredients listed on spa websites or even on the websites of manufacturers of spa ranges, such as Elemis, Decléor and Clarins.

 

There is no question of illegal substances being used, although it is possible that the use of some ingredients that are legal today will be more restricted in a few years' time. A n overhaul of the way chemicals are regulated across Europe, called Reach (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals), is under way. After years of wrangling, Europe's political leaders agreed to proceed with Reach in 2006, having realised that the shortcomings in existing chemicals regulation couldn't be ignored any longer. The key motivation for the project is concern about the absence of safety data for tens of thousands of chemicals that have been on the market for years.

 

What regulators are increasingly seeking from the skincare and cosmetics industry is better data about the penetrative power of skincare ingredients, plus more information about the possibility that exposure to particular substances could make conception more difficult, or cancer, genetic change or weakened immunity more likely. Our skin is not an impermeable shield that separates us from the world we live in.

 

Depending on whom you ask, either no one is asking spas what is in the treatment products they use or spas are facing questions from customers on a regular basis. Suki Kalirai, chairman of the Spa Business Association, has not heard of any spa being asked to discuss formulations. He doesn't think it is a concern and says that if it ever becomes one it will be the job of product manufacturers to provide information. Meanwhile, Fiona Brackenbury, head of UK training and education for spa range manufacturer Decléor, tells a different story. "The situation today is very different from even five years ago," she says. "Now, when a new spa is opening and all the brands are invited to present their products, we are asked much more technical questions. Spa managers want to know what is in our formulations."

 

A few skincare brands won't face a struggle to reformulate because they already exclude many substances of potential concern. REN Skincare is one such brand and its marketing bumf is crystal clear: "No petrochemicals, sulfates, parabens, synthetic fragrance, synthetic colours, TEA, DEA, glycols, silicones, PEGs et al." Rob Calcraft, one of REN's founders, explains: "It has to be possible to bridge the gap between eco skincare - which so often is heavy, bad?smelling and offers so little pleasure and modernity - and the high-tech, well-packaged mainstream brands. The market has become so polarised, with natural brands focused on high-quality ingredients versus the big, synthetic boys who, at best, are inching towards a more natural approach. Bridging that gap is what we're trying to do with REN."

 

Neal's Yard Remedies is another skincare manufacturer committed to restricting use of potentially risky substances. "We operate according to the precautionary principle, so we don't use substances such as parabens," explains Neal's Yard medicines director Susan Curtis. However, like many in the business, Curtis acknowledges that completely natural skincare is not a realistic aspiration. "Unless you want to make up a product fresh every day, then some type of preservative is needed, and if you want to make an effective shampoo you do need a mild detergent. There are a lot of questions about potential health risks but not a lot of evidence. Not enough research is being done." Some of the substances under suspicion may prove benign, but there isn't enough solid data yet to know one way or another.

 

Finding a spa that uses fewer chemical-intensive products in its treatments isn't easy. A few British spas use REN products, including Barnsley House, Bamford Hay Barn, Royal Day Spa and the male-specific treatment rooms at Wholeman, W1. Neal's Yard has its own treatment rooms. Tucked away in the New Forest, SenSpa is one of the few British spas to ensure that all its treatment products are as natural as possible. Spa director Lina Lotto, who is in the process of developing SenSpa's own range of organic skin therapies, says: "Everything will be Soil Association-certified, there will be no synthetics, and even some preservative systems approved by the Soil Association are excluded."

 

SenSpa's natural approach is the exception. The British spa sector appears content to stick with conventional brands, at least for now. Champneys spokesperson Sharon Scott is refreshingly honest when she says that product formulations "are not something we worry too much about". However, she adds that Champneys would "do something if public concern grew". Time will tell.

 

• European Health & Environment Alliance: chemicalshealthmonitor.org

• US-based Campaign for Safe Cosmetics' database: cosmeticdatabase.com

• Women's Environmental Network's cosmetic campaign: wen.org.uk/cosmetics

• Chemical Watch, news service focusing on chemicals regulation: chemicalwatch.com

• SenSpa, Brockenhurst, Hampshire: senspa.co.uk

• REN: renskincare.com

• Neal's Yard Remedies: nealsyardremedies.com

 

 

How did 26 seriously hazardous chemicals end up in my body? - Erin Gill is a clean-living vegetarian who eats mainly organic food. When she agreed to have her blood tested for 77 poisons, some of them long banned, she was in for a shock
The Independent on Sunday, 26 October 2003 , independent.co.uk

 

 

 

When a friendly chap from a firm called Medicman took several vials of blood from me last year, I was more concerned that an ugly bruise would appear than what tests on all that blood would reveal. But now I'm staring at two sheets of A4 that tell me how many seriously hazardous chemicals have been found in my blood and I'm thinking about the big picture – about cancer, infertility, autoimmune diseases and chronic illnesses such as asthma. I'm reading the bit that says "total chemical burden" and wondering what impact this may have on my long-term health.

 

So what's a clean-living 32-year old woman like me doing with a "total chemical burden"? I'm one of 155 people from across the UK who agreed to have their blood tested as part of research by the environmental group WWF into the health effects of chemicals. It's the largest exercise in "biomonitoring" the UK has seen in many years and the results will be scrutinised by experts and governments across Europe and probably beyond. They will be published in full next month, but I can reveal this much: not one of the 155 participants had clean blood. One lucky person showed detectable levels of only nine of the 77 chemicals measures. I had 26, and this was about average.

 

These 77 chemicals are the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Everyone is exposed to thousands more during their lives and comprehensive testing for contamination is technically and financially impossible. If a perfect test were available it would probably prove that I am home to hundreds of synthetic chemical compounds and that many of them will accumulate inside me until I die. WWF chose to look for substances from three chemical families – PCBs, which have been banned for more than twenty years; OCPs, pesticides that are mostly banned; and particular types of flame retardants, use of which is only beginning to be restricted.

 

The list of diseases and disorders that could be "promoted" in people who have been exposed to these substances is still growing and includes fertility problems, all sorts of cancers, neurobehavioural disorders such as hyperactivity or reduced intelligence, and chronic illnesses such as allergies and asthma.

 

I lead a fairly normal life. I've never worked in a pesticide manufacturing plant. I'm a non-smoker and have been a vegetarian for more than a decade. Increasingly, the fruit and veg I eat is organic. My only vices are a penchant for fatty dairy products and frequent, moderate alcohol consumption.

 

How did those 26 chemicals get into my body? The scientific community cannot offer precise answers. This area is rapidly becoming a research priority but for now we're in largely uncharted territory. What science can tell me is that my contamination began in the womb. My mother was pregnant with me and I spent the first year of my life on the shore of Lake Ontario, a global PCB hotspot thanks to decades of unregulated industrial discharges into the lake. My PCB contamination count is 20 out of the 42 tested. Three of the PCBs found in my blood at levels higher than in many of the other participants are chief suspects for cancer and hormone functioning problems. Like many other "bioaccumulative" chemicals, I expect them to stay there my whole life.

 

There is increasing evidence that exposure to the wrong substances at the wrong time during foetal development may play a role in just about any problem, disease or disorder you can name. The reason unborn children are thought to be at such great risk is because there are "windows of opportunity" during pregnancy when certain organs or bodily functions develop at extraordinary speed. The theory goes that exposure during these windows of even tiny amounts of chemicals can produce life-long effects in these children – cancers, autoimmune diseases, problems in brain development, on and on.

 

"You can have a lag of 20 to 30 years – even longer – before you begin to see certain effects," says Matthew Wilkinson, WWF's toxics policy officer. But I shouldn't blame Lake Ontario for my entire PCB burden. Like most of us I am probably still being exposed to PCBs. They were banned in the 1970s but remain in old industrial equipment, and mandatory programmes to remove them haven't been a resounding success. I am certainly still being exposed to the second of WWF's target set of substances, OCPs, shovelling them in with every spoonful of contaminated food I eat.

 

OCPs are the pesticides, such as DDT, that first hit the headlines as killers in the 1960s when they were routinely sprayed from aeroplanes across entire US states. They are suspected of lowering fertility and causing cancer, but exactly how and at what concentrations probably varies from person to person. I have three OCPs out of the 12 I was tested for. DDT is now banned, but the problem with it, and every one of the 77 substances I was tested for, is persistence. Instead of decomposing quickly when released into the environment, they persist in water and soil and are taken up by plants. They move up the food chain, building up in livestock, fish and, eventually, humans. They are present in minuscule quantities in many foods we eat today.

 

Fatty foods such as oily fish, meat and dairy products are thought to be more contaminated, but there is no hard and fast rule – there are those who believe DDT levels may be particularly high in dark green vegetables. Each gram of my blood fat contains 8.92 nanograms of DDT and 68.65 nanograms of a DDT-breakdown product called DDE. A nanogram is a minuscule measurement, but these levels aren't good. My DDT reading is higher than the group median. Another participant had a staggering reading for DDE.

 

My blood was also tested for 23 "fire safety" chemicals called PBDEs. These are flame retardants, which are added to everything from computers to beds and carpets to slow the spread of fire. There is a theory that these chemicals "escape" from products and enter our bodies via our skin or lungs. Some scientists are concerned that PBDEs may be entering food from the plastic packaging food is wrapped in. The list of flame retardants' potential harmful effects is similar to PCBs but much less is know about them. My PBDE contamination count was three out of 23 tested.

I could try to avoid further contamination by buying my next sofa from Ikea (they've promised not to use PBDEs whenever possible) or by not having carpets in my house. But I'll never succeed in creating a PBDE-free environment. I work in an office where I sit in front of a computer infused with flame retardant, on a seat that contains them, and my feet rest on a new carpet.

 

I'm not shocked by my blood test results. I knew I would be contaminated. Everyone is. Still, my PCB readings in particular concern me. I fear developing cancer at an early age, but I also worry about related disorders than can indicate a "pre-cancerous" state, like endometriosis. If I were a man, I'd wonder how my sperm count compared with that of my grandfather at the same age.

 

My dominant feelings are anger, frustration and sadness that I've been exposed to a chemical cocktail from the word go. I will never be rid of this legacy. One day, we may be forced to develop chemical detox programmes but they don't exist yet. Currently, many of the chemicals are stored in my fat. If I tried to create my own detox plan I'd risk releasing them to circulate freely. They're better where they are. My dirty blood is proof that it's time for governments to demand that chemical companies develop safe alternatives.

 

It's impossible to cut out all exposure to chemicals but you can reduce your exposure. People who eat organic food appear to have lower levels of pesticide residues in their urine. Reducing exposure is particularly recommended for women planning to become pregnant. For other tips, see www.wwf.org.uk/chemicals and www.greenpeace.org.uk/toxics.

 

© Erin Gill

 

 

What's for dinner, darling? Ooh, endocrine disrupters – my favourite - We know hormones in rivers are making fish change sex, but what about similar chemicals in food? Or our babies' nappies? Erin Gill investigates
The Independent on Sunday, 30 March 2003, independent.co.uk

 

 

Here's a question that won't come up at your weekly pub quiz. What do bath foam, the linings of tin cans, non-organic veg and plastic food wrap have in common? Answer: they may all contain chemicals that could be damaging our fertility and increasing our risk of developing cancer. Every one of these suspect chemicals is legal. Whether they'll still be legal in 20 or 30 years' times is another question.

 

The words "endocrine disruption" probably don't ring any bells, but maybe you've heard of "gender-bending" chemicals. That's the tabloid phrase used to describe a group of synthetic substances that are producing all sorts of damage to wildlife, including changing the sex of fish in UK rivers. Sex-changing fish isn't as funny as it sounds. It involves phenomena such as eggs growing in testicles – and it doesn't take a biologist to realise such abnormalities can't be good for procreation rates. What scientists and governments are now scrambling to understand is whether some of the 100,000-odd synthetic chemicals currently authorised for use in the developed world are having unexpected and dangerous effects on humans. Many environmental groups argue that we should be able to guess the answer. "What chemicals do to animals, they also do to us," say Gwynne Lyons, science advisor for WWF.

 

The fear is that hundreds of the chemicals we are all exposed to – whether we live in central London or northern Scotland – might be interfering with our endocrine systems. That is, messing with our hormones, and hormones are crucial to the proper functioning of everything from our reproductive organs to our height. Growing numbers of scientists are busy investigating whether endocrine disrupting chemicals are behind ever-increasing rates of breast, ovarian, testicular and prostate cancer. They are also keeping their eyes on other grim endocrine disorders that might be on the increase: low sperm counts in young, strapping men; baby boys born with undescended testicles or malformed penises; women with ovarian cysts or endometriosis.

 

As research projects proliferate, environmental groups and some scientists are becoming more vocal, arguing that our ability to live healthy lives and reproduce is being threatened. If damage is occurring, unborn babies are most as risk because their endocrine systems are still being formed. Any notion that a pregnant woman doesn't pass on chemicals to her unborn child has been proven false. Young children and teenagers are also at higher risk because their bodies are changing quickly.

 

As things stand, it looks as though it will take decades to prove conclusively that endocrine-disrupting chemicals are contributing to reproductive failure, birth defects and cancer. We don't even have 100 per cent scientific proof of exactly how smoking causes lung cancer, but nobody argues any more that it doesn't. Because science takes so long to produce iron-clad data, the real battle will be about whether precautionary bans on suspect substances should be introduced. Given that the European Union has compiled a list of 550 possible endocrine disrupters, any bans are likely to focus on the most heavily used and dangerous substances.

 

Although the chemical industry isn't pleased at the thought of what's euphemistically termed "regulatory action", there are signs the public is ready for change. In Germany, there was recent widespread concern about the future virility of baby boys when traces of a known endocrine disrupter called TBT – whose use is now being restricted severely – was found in babies' nappies. Sweden, meanwhile, is worried about the effects of flame-resistant chemicals added to furniture, and Denmark is mulling over research suggesting that 18-20 year old male Danes have the lowest average sperm counts ever recorded in the country's history.

 

That brings us back to tin cans, bath foam and fruit and veg. Have you noticed that many tin cans have a thin plastic coating on the inside? This is usually made from something called bisphenol-A. It crops up in all sorts of products, including some baby bottles, and scientists are worried it's migrating into our food.

 

Concern about bath foams focuses on their scent, which means that most perfumed toiletries are also under the spotlight thanks to a group of substances called phthalates, used in the formulation of fragrances. Plastic food wrapping and other flexible plastics are also a big concern. The fear is that endocrine disrupting ingredients in them are prone to leaching. It's such a hot topic that the EU has imposed an emergency ban to prevent certain plastics from being used in teething rings for babies. Pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables are also setting off alarm bells. Many of the most widely used pesticides are suspected endocrine disrupters. Supporters of organic farming say that the risk of raising children destined for reproductive dysfunction and cancer is too great and that chemical-free is the only way to go.

The number of products containing possible endocrine disrupters is huge and the process of identifying which substances present the greatest risk is far from complete. Cutting exposure rates will take years and will require serious changes to chemical regulation. The reality is that we've barely passed go. Maybe we need to speed things up.

[subhead] Rising cancer rates

 

Figures for England and Wales show that between 1971 and 1997:

  • Prostate cancer has more than doubled

  • Testicular cancer has almost doubled

  • Breast cancer up by over 50%

  • Ovarian cancer has risen by about 30%.

 

Protecting yourself and your children

Completely eliminating exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals isn't possible, so don't waste energy dreaming of a plastic bubble or a mountain hideaway. You can, however, reduce your intake. The easies way is by minimising ingestion of pesticides. It may all sound tremendously worthy and predictable, but a varied and organic diet is a good idea. Streamlining your use of toiletries and cosmetics is another option. Many of the substances being investigated for endocrine disruption are in cosmetics and run-of-the-mill products such as shampoo. If you think your skin doesn't absorb what's in body lotion, how do you think nicotine patches or the new contraceptive patch work? One organisation campaigning for improved cosmetic safety is the Women's Environmental Network (www.wen.org.uk). Finally, consider making the biggest efforts to cut exposure during pregnancy and when your children are young. Exposure in the womb to synthetic chemicals is considered a crucial factor in determining someone's long-term, adult health. Using "natural" toiletries when you're pregnant and deciding that your baby will be relatively "cream free" is infinitely more practical than forgoing cover-up for a lifetime.

 

Plastic not so fantastic

Our lives would grind to a halt without plastic. Yet despite its usefulness it might be wise to treat plastic – especially its flexible forms – with a bit more respect and caution. Flexible plastics aren't as chemically stable as solids such as ceramics and glass, and "microwave safe" plastic containers have not been specifically tested to ensure that small amounts of endocrine disrupting ingredients don't leach into food. Is putting food onto a ceramic plate before microwaving it really that difficult?

 

Support legal change

If chemicals are messing with our hormones, politicians are going to have to start taking decisions the chemical industry won't like. Governments will only introduce bans on specific substances or restrictions on certain uses if the public is as concerned as the scientific community about what might happen. "Most people think there's someone watching out for them when it comes to these sorts of things, but there isn't," says Gwynne Lyons of WWF. WWF is pushing for the phasing out of chemicals that accumulate in our bodies (wwf.org.uk/chemicals).

© Erin Gill