Recent research led by Professor Alex Ford has unveiled a concerning trend in the environmental toxicology field: a significant reluctance among industry scientists to test chemicals for their behavioral effects, despite mounting evidence linking contaminants to various behavioral disorders in both wildlife and humans. For 2021, the paper scored a rare double—two best paper prizes. It surveyed 166 scientists from 27 countries, primarily in Europe, and revealed a clear divide in feelings on the issue between academics and professionals in industry.
The historical legacy is not a new issue. Turns of phrase such as “mad as a hatter” and “crazy as a painter” have long emphasized the artistic madness. These expressions came from their exposure to lead-based paints. These cultural references highlight a long-lasting sensitivity to the dangers of chemical exposure. Research is changing quickly. In behavioral effects studies alone, a cornerstone field of environmental toxicology, research has skyrocketed 34-fold just since the year 2000.
Growing Consensus on Behavioral Effects
Professor Ford and colleagues’ recent survey shows robust consensus among scientists. They all seem to agree that contaminants carry a huge behavioral effect. A surprisingly large 97 percent of specialists assume that environmental pollutants affect the behavior of wildlife. Furthermore, 84% understand that these aquatic pollutants can affect human behavior. This historic agreement intensifies the debate over how regulators practice their craft and whether extensive testing of chemicals is necessary.
When it comes to including behavioral tests in chemical safety assessments, an overwhelming majority is on board. As to the large gaps between academics—approximately 80%—and government scientists—approximately 91%—supporting these measures. This was the case for only 30% of industry respondents. This gap emphasizes a large divide in how different industries approach the dangers of potential chemical exposure. It further illustrates the possible behavioral impacts that result from these contrasting strategies.
“The overwhelming majority of scientists—including those in industry—agree that contaminants can affect behavior,” – Professor Alex Ford
Regardless of the scientific consensus, the continued hesitance to introduce behavioral testing into regulatory frameworks is disconcerting. Ågerstrand, a researcher at Stockholm University, explained the challenges that regulators have in putting such measures into practice.
“Our previous research shows that while European law doesn’t prevent regulators from introducing behavioral tests for chemicals, there are very few official testing requirements in place,” – Marlene Ågerstrand
Concerns Over Industry Perspectives
As I listened to Professor Ford, I grew alarmed by the industry’s fear of behavioral testing. He called on the industries to be aware of the potential economic impact of testing chemicals for behavioral effects. They are afraid it will result in increased costs or more embarrassing findings.
“What worries me is that industry appears apprehensive that testing chemicals for their behavioral effects will lead to increased costs and potentially uncover effects they’d rather not have to address. When we’re talking about protecting human health and wildlife, surely using the most sensitive, and thereby most protective, data should take priority over profit margins,” – Professor Alex Ford
The stakes of this reluctance are high. Recent evidence has indicated robust relationships between air pollutants and neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s and Huntington’s diseases. Ongoing research seeks to unravel the role of environmental contaminants in neurodevelopmental conditions such as dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, and even criminal behavior.
The Path Forward
The scientific community is already hard at work overcoming these barriers. It is still unclear whether there is the will to go further given the mounting evidence that there are chemicals behind the behavioral changes. A pretty great consensus among experts agree that behavioral assessments are necessary. It’s now up to industry leaders and regulatory bodies alike to follow suit by adopting and implementing more robust testing standards.
The continued discussion on this topic underscores the important intersection of science, policy, and industry ethics. Researchers are still struggling, putting together the connection between environmental toxins and behavioral health. It’s then up to every stakeholder to work positively to ensure we make our shared future, one that benefits both people and animals.
“The question now is whether we have the collective will to act on that knowledge to better protect human health and the environment,” – Professor Alex Ford
The ongoing dialogue surrounding this issue highlights the critical intersection of science, policy, and industry ethics. As researchers continue to uncover connections between environmental toxins and behavioral health, it is imperative that all stakeholders engage constructively to ensure a safe future for both humans and wildlife.