Facing up to the challenge

Assessing risk

Andreas then presented the consensus statement about identifying endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals – arrived at by scientists previously engaged in disputes about the topic. This consensus stated that the potency of chemicals does not play a role during the identification of endocrine disrupting properties. Accordingly, the recently published criteria of the European Commission do not take potency into consideration.

This decision is debatable. Typically, when conducting risk assessments, both potency and hazard must be taken into consideration. This is because most chemicals follow the typical dose-response relationship where the dose makes the poison. The issue with endocrine disrupting chemicals is that some exhibit a non-monotonic dose-response relationship (NMDR). There are different types of NMDRs. One type, known as hormesis, is the phenomenon whereby low doses of a chemical can actually have a beneficial effect to a system. There also exists the opposite whereby low doses can be more toxic than high doses. And then there are some chemicals that have no safe level at all. The European Commission has taken the opinion that all endocrine disruptors cause adverse effects at any dose and have therefore decided that measuring potency for the purposes of conducting a hazard assessment is pointless. This could have problems in the agrochemical industry, for example, as not all chemicals fit into this category. This could affect the sale and distribution of some chemicals, e.g. some pesticides, which are vital for crop protection.

Chemical free

Then, Prof. Lynn Frewer, School of agriculture, Newcastle University, discussed the perception of chemicals to the general public, especially the misconceptions that they have regarding the safety of ‘naturally occurring compounds’ in foodstuffs. The public’s perception of risk is largely based on emotion and socio-economic reasons. Lynn went on to say that unfamiliar foods are highly feared, however, foods that are familiar yet are known to cause harm to human health, such as saturated fats and sugars, are not feared. This strange relationship with certain chemicals is where the difficulty lies, because even though many people know the risks associated with them, changing a person’s perception and lifestyle is exceptionally difficult. It would seem that what needs to be communicated to the general public is that many naturally occurring compounds are more toxic than synthetic compounds (in fact the deadliest toxins are naturally occurring). Food manufacturers aren’t doing any favours to change this misconception as they now print misleading slogans onto food packaging, such as ‘contains only natural compounds’. This needs rectifying; however a method of doing so needs to be determined.

Fact vs perception

The final talk, delivered by Prof. Sherrilyn Roush, deepened our understanding of the concept of perception itself by firstly explaining that our perceptions are in fact largely drawn upon by definitions or generalisations and are rarely arbitrary. Once a definition exists, factual consequences are implied that can only be changed if the definition is re-written. For example, we could have classified the whale as a fish, despite its placental reproductive system, and still made many true general claims about fish and mammals. But classifying the whale as a mammal gives us true generalizations of wider scope.

Sherrilyn then asked ‘at what point does a perception become fact’? The answer is that a singular person believing the perception is in itself evidence that the perception holds some truth. When it comes to decision-making, people can come to their own conclusion via one of two routes. They can either follow other peoples’ decisions (because other peoples’ opinions are perceived to be factual and therefore valid), or they can themselves come to a conclusion without prior bias by weighing the risks and benefits from the original evidence. I wonder then whether jurors in a court of law should be allowed to discuss their opinions, as surely each individual juror is partially blinded by their fellow counterparts. Based on what Sherrilyn had said, one audience member asked whether scientists should be funded independently instead of collaborating with one another. Sherrilyn stated that the answer to this question is not black and white. Although it would certainly be impressive if different groups could independently come to the same conclusion regarding a particular research question, the direction of research itself is driven by challenges that researchers encounter. The field of science is inherently bias due to the existence of paradigms formed by prior bias, thus trying to change any scientific paradigm is extremely difficult. My understanding, therefore, on the concept of changing ones’ perception is such that changes in perception can only occur if independent evidence outweighs prior bias. I suppose you’ll just have to take my word for it…

Anaïs received her bachelor’s degree in Natural Sciences from the University of Leeds in 2014, then her master’s degree in Toxicology from the University of Surrey in 2015. She is currently a second year PhD student at the University of Exeter under the supervision of Prof. Noel Morgan, Prof. Peter Winlove, Dr Jaqueline Whatmore and Dr Peter Petrov. Her research is multidisciplinary, spanning the medical science and physical sciences, focusing on the mechanisms of toxicity of long chain saturated fatty acids in mammalian cells.