[Endocrine disruption agents: environment, health, public policies, and the precautionary principle].
The already substantial body of evidence and growing web of suspicions as to the scale and severity of the cascade effects of endocrine disrupters (related to persistent organic pollutants or POPs) on the health of ecosystems and humans have sparked such concern that in June 1998, representatives of 94 countries meeting in Montreal under the aegis of UNEP signed a draft international agreement to phase out the most harmful POPs. Related to particular persistent organic pollutants--toxic semi-volatile and persistent chemical compounds now found everywhere in the environment, such as BPCs, organochlorine pesticides, dioxins and furans, that build up in the bodies of organisms that consume other contaminated organisms along the food chain--endocrine disrupters are strongly suspected of affecting the health of animals and adversely impacting the health, fertility and even intellectual faculties of humans. For example, very low-level exposure to some POPs is associated with some hormone-dependent cancers, damage to the central and peripheral nervous systems, impaired immune system function, reproductive disorders and developmental disruptions in newborns and infants, who can be affected in utero or through breast-feeding. Considering the extreme complexity of the scientific and socio-economic effects of POP-related endocrine disrupters, there are those who, advocate a wait-and-see approach, claiming that there is not enough formal scientific proof. There are others who use the available evidence to advance the research, press for bans on incriminated substances and look for global, integrated and viable alternatives. And there are other still who, with careless disregard for the Precautionary Principle, are quite prepared to talk about the perverse effects of POPs in order to justify the increased use of artificial means of reproduction or the replacement of chemical pesticides by pest-resistant genetically modified organisms (GMOs), thereby opening the door to "solutions" that are potentially more biologically and ethically dangerous than the problems they purport to remedy. This paper provides an overview of the current understanding of the main sources and suspected effects of POPs on animal life and human health, explores the complexity of the scientific, economic and political issues involved in any international process to do away with the incriminated products, discusses the risks and perverse consequences of some of the proposed alternatives, and stresses the importance, in the light of these risks and consequences, of placing renewed emphasis on public and environmental health approaches based on the Precautionary Principle.
Département de sociologie Institut des sciences de l'environnement de l'Université du Québec à Montréal.
L
L
Vandelac
D004700:Endocrine System Diseases / Q000150:complications / Q000209:etiology*; D004787:Environmental Pollution; D006262:Health; D006801:Humans; D009422:Nervous System Diseases / Q000209:etiology; D011640:Public Policy