Download slides - ISRTP

Communications and the
Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program
ISRTP Workshop
December 13, 2010
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context: 1996
What’s in a name?
EDSTAC recommendations on communications
EPA’s communications
Market de-selection concerns
Industry’s watch-outs
Media Context in 1996
•
•
•
•
Our Stolen Future
Gender Benders
Alligators in the lake
“You’re not half the man your grandfather
was.”
• Breast cancer rates: 1 in 9
• Science Magazine
What’s in a name?
•
•
•
•
What’s an “endocrine disruptor”?
Wingspread definition
Weybridge definition
Concern: chemicals were being labeled as EDs
prior to there being any test data to support
such claims
• Concern: market was starting to respond
EDSTAC
• Recognized that effective communication
about the EDSP and its results would be
critical to its success.
• A communications workgroup looked at
communication issues at key decision points in
the EDSP framework and in implementation.
• Recognized the limitations that must be
placed on information interpretation.
EDSTAC (cont.)
• Recognized a key concern: “…information could
be misused to label chemicals as ‘endocrine
disruptors’ prior to the existence of evidence to
support such a claim. Such potential misuse of
information could lead to unnecessary and undue
concern, along with a failure to focus society’s
attention on those substances that are most likely
to be endocrine disruptors. Such a result could, in
the end, create problems serving the interest of
no one.” (EDSTAC Report, p. 6-3)
EDSTAC Communications
Principles
• Processes and results should be open and
transparent
• Results should be interpreted and communicated
within context
• Limitations and uncertainties of data and results
should be articulated clearly
• Changes in scientific evidence should be
communicated clearly
• Quality assurance must be provided for accurate
and current public databases
EDSP Processes
•
•
•
•
Prioritization
Tier 1 Screening
Tier 2 Testing
Hazard Assessment
Prioritization
• What is the list ? What isn’t the list? What’s the
name of the list?
• EPA context: “…the public should not presume
that the listing of a chemical or substance
indicates in any way that EPA currently suspects
that such chemical or substance interferes with
the endocrine systems of humans or other
species simply because it has been listed for
screening under the EDSP.”
Prioritization (cont.)
• “At the present time, EPA believes that these
chemicals or substances should be candidates,
at least for screening purposes, under EDSP
testing based only on their pesticide
registration status and/or because such
substances may occur in sources of drinking
water to which a substantial population may
be exposed.”
Tier 1 Screening
• Communication about what it is for and about
decisions resulting from it
• Tier 1 determines whether chemicals interact
with estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormone
systems
• Communicate results in neutral terms:
-- No further screening or testing required
-- Further analysis requiring Tier 2 testing
Tier 2 Testing
• Communication about what Tier 2 testing will tell
us: does the interaction with EAT hormone
systems result in adverse effects?
• Communication about results in neutral terms:
-- no evidence of endocrine mediated adverse
effects
-- evidence of endocrine mediated adverse effects
-- may trigger additional testing or a hazard
assessment
Communicating to Customers
• Customers’ demands in 1996
• EDSP development’s impact on those
demands
• How EPA communicates about the priority list,
and about the Tier 1 and Tier 2 results will be
key to how customers respond and what they
demand.
Take-Aways
• Advocate with EPA throughout the process
about the importance of communicating
information about the EDSP in its appropriate
context and in neutral terms
• Use balanced, neutral communications with
your customers
• Repeat EPA’s words wherever possible
• Don’t be dismissive, don’t over-state