Environmental protectionism

Environmental protectionism

It is estimated that around 100,000 compounds are now produced by the world chemicals industry which are novel to nature. We have only limited insight into the biological properties of many of these, and we have received unpleasant shocks from some of them. For example, it appears that the commonly-used triazine herbicides accumulate in the environment, and may deform or sterilize amphibians. Some chlorinated hydrocarbons not only persist, but vaporize into the air, from which they are washed out by rain years and thousands of kilometres later. These products appear to have powerful estrogen-mimicing effects, delivering the equivalent of the birth control pill to susceptible species.

However - and it is a large 'however' - nature itself possesses a formidable armamentarium of toxic compounds. Clover is a common species in the grass which sheep browse. When its leaves are eaten, the roots synthesise estrogen in quantities sufficient to sterilize animals such as sheep which browse it. Almost all of the spicy plants which we use in cooking contain compounds which are intended to irritate, mutate, poison or subvert the metabolism of their predators. Coffee and chocolate contain neurotoxins, which is why we value them. However, both would fail elementary toxicology screens. The cooking practices of most of humanity today and of all of humanity through most of our history produce carcinogens, particulate smoke and other factors which would lead to their failing standard health screens.

Very many common compounds are, therefore, incapable of passing modern toxicological screens. It is perhaps for this reason that the European chemicals industry is alarmed by European Union legislation which mandates that all chemicals be subject to a full toxicology assessment. This will cost at least ten billion Euros to undertake, and will place a lasting burden on the industry as new compounds are developed. In the order of 30,000 chemicals are involved, and 1500 will be subject to sales limitations until the tests are complete. The German Chemicals Industry Association has forecast that these measures would lead to two million job losses. This figure seen by others as excessive but is, nonetheless, an indicator of the vulnerability of some parts of the intensely competitive chemicals industry to significant, unilateral cost increases.

This approach contrasts strongly with that of the US, where it is necessary to have a reason for concern before regulatory burdens are imposed on the makers of a compound. US commentators are therefore concerned that this is a measure aimed chiefly at closing European markets to US and other manufacturers, as has happened through other legislation of an ostensibly "environmental" nature. The issue of genetically modified crop plants is one which is commonly raised in this context.

This is, then, yet another potential element in the trade and political friction which is developing between Europe and the USA. The Challenge Forum produced scenarios in 1998, one of which foresaw just such increases in tension. This led to a situation called "Atlantic Storm", a frank abandonment of cross-Atlantic cooperation. Trans-national companies and Atlanticist countries had to decide with which block they most wanted to concentrate their interests. Whilst some of the drivers of this scenario were to do with political style, with attitudes to modernity and with security policy, the bulk of the antagonism centred around trade. A weak Euro, a protectionist ethos and a sharply aging population all underpinned this situation. It is not always gratifying to see a scenario develop into reality.