Developments in Environmental Toxicology: Interview with two pioneers
Developments in Environmental Toxicology: interview with two pioneers
Editors
Cornelis A.M. van Gestel, Frank G.A.J. Van Belleghem, Nico W. van den Brink, Steven T.J. Droge, Timo Hamers, Joop L.M. Hermens, Michiel H.S. Kraak, Ansje J. Löhr, John R. Parsons, Ad M.J. Ragas, Nico M. van Straalen, and Martina G. Vijver
Preface
This open online textbook on Environmental Toxicology aims at covering the field in its full width, including aspects of environmental chemistry, ecotoxicology, toxicology and risk assessment. With that, it will contribute to improving the quality, continuity and transparency of the education in environmental toxicology. We also want to make sure that fundamental insights on fate and effects of chemicals gained in the past are combined with recent approaches of effect assessment and molecular analysis of mechanisms causing toxicity.
The book consists of six chapters, with each chapter being divided into several sub-chapters to enable covering all aspects relevant to the topic. All chapters are designed in a modular way, which each module having clear training goals and being flagged with a number of keywords. Most modules have an average length of 1000-2000 words, a limited number of references, and 3-5 figures and/or tables. A few modules are enlighted with short clips, animations or movies to allow better illustration of the theory. The introduction chapter of the book, for instance, contains a short interview with two key experts reflecting on the development of the field over the past 30 years.
The book contains tools for self-study and training, like a (limited) number of questions at the end of each module. For the future we foresee the addition of separate exercises and other tools that may help the student in understanding the theory.
The development of this open online textbook was carried out by a project team that included a team of editors and some supporting staff. The team of editors consisted of environmental toxicologists and chemists from six Dutch universities. They drafted the outline of the book, assigned leaders for each chapter, and identified authors for each module. Each module is authored by 1-2 members of the project team. When a topic required expertise not present among the project team, an external expert was asked to write a module (see List of authors).
To guarantee quality of the book, each module was reviewed by at least one of the members of the project team but also by an international reviewer from outside the project team (see List of reviewers). An advisory board and a steering committee were involved in supervising the project, as well as educational advisors, while the project team served as an editorial board.
The supporting staff included an expert from the university library of the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, who advised on the choice of and working with online publication formats, copyright issues, options for including links to other freely available online materials, etc. We also had support from a designer and a professional drawer, who both contributed to the development of the book.
The publication of this book on an open online publication platform allowing free access to anyone, and facilitates its embedding in Learning Management Systems like Canvas and Blackboard often used in university teaching, so giving students easy access.
The modular composition of the book will allow teachers to design their ‘own’ book, by selecting those modules relevant for the class to teach. This will support flexible use of the book.
The publication as an open online book will allow continuous updating of the book, so to stay on top of new developments in the field. As it stands, about 100 modules have been finalized, another 30 modules are already available in drafs that currently are in the process of reviewing, and some more modules are still in preparation. In spite of this large number of modules, which do provide a good basis for teaching at the BSc level, we do realize the book still is not complete. More advance modules that would facilitate teachign at the MSc and higher level as well as widening the number of topics seems desirable, but such was not possible within the current project. We therefore will continu working on the book, but we also welcome any suggestions for extending the book, and we invite colleagues in environmental toxicology and chemistry to take the initiative to write modules on topics still missing.
The preparation of this book was sponsored by the Netherlands Ministry of Education, Culture and Science through SURF, but could not have been realized without the help of many colleagues who assisted in the writing and reviewing the different modules (see Acknowledgement).
Amsterdam, September 2019
1.1. Environmental toxicology
Author: Ad Ragas
Reviewers: Kees van Gestel, Nico van Straalen
Learning objectives
You should be able to
characterize the field of environmental toxicology;
explain what type of knowledge from environmental chemistry, toxicology and ecology is relevant for environmental toxicology;
explain the difference between environmental toxicology and ecotoxicology.
Environmental toxicology is the science that studies the fate and effects of potentially hazardous chemicals in the environment. It is a multidisciplinary field assimilating and building upon knowledge, concepts and techniques from other disciplines, such as toxicology, analytical chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, ecology and pathology. Environmental toxicology emerged in response to the growing awareness in the second part of the 20th century that chemicals emitted to the environment can trigger hazardous effects in organisms living in this environment, including humans. Section 1.3 gives a brief summary of the history of environmental toxicology.
One way to depict the field of environmental toxicology is by a triangle consisting of chemicals, the environment and organisms (Figure 1). The triangle illustrates that the fate and potential hazardous effects of chemicals emitted to the environment are determined by the interactions between these chemicals, the environment and organisms. The fate of substances in the environment is the topic of environmental chemistry, the effects of substances on living organisms is studied by toxicology, and the implications of these effects on higher levels of biological organization are analyzed by the field of ecology.
Another term widely used to refer to this field of study is ecotoxicology. The main distinction is the inclusion of human health as an endpoint in environmental toxicology, whereas ecotoxicology is restricted to ecological endpoints. Since the current book includes human health as an assessment endpoint for environmental contaminants, the term environmental toxicology is preferred over ecotoxicology.
Figure 1:Environmental toxicology studies the interactions between chemicals, organisms and the environment making use of environmental chemistry, toxicology and ecology. Source: Ad Ragas.
Environmental chemists study the fate of chemicals in the environment, e.g. their distribution over different environmental compartments and how this distribution is influenced by the physicochemical properties of a chemical and the characteristics of the environment. They aim to understand the pathways and processes involved in the environmental fate of a chemical after it has been emitted to the environment, including processes such as advection, deposition and (bio)degradation. Within the context of environmental toxicology, the ultimate aim is to produce a reliable assessment of the exposure of organisms, an aim which is often complicated by the enormous heterogeneity of the environment.
Environmental chemists use a variety of tools to analyze and assess the fate of chemicals in the environment. Two fundamental tools are analytical measurements and mathematical modelling. Measurements are essential to acquire new knowledge and insight into the behavior of chemicals in the environment., e.g. measurements on emissions, environmental concentrations and specific processes such as biodegradation. These measurements are analyzed to discover patterns, e.g. between substance properties and environmental characteristics. Once revealed, such patterns can be integrated into a comprehensive mathematical model to predict the fate of and exposure to substances in the environment. If sufficiently validated, these models can subsequently be used by risk assessors to assess the exposure of organisms to chemicals, reducing the need for expensive measurements.
Chapter 2 focuses on the types of chemicals occurring in the environment, their sources and the concentrations found at contaminated sites. In Chapter 3, focus will be on the fate and transport of these chemicals, including aspects of bioavailability and bioaccumulation in organisms.
Toxicologists study the effects of chemicals on organisms, often at the individual level. Fundamental toxicologists aim to understand the mechanisms involved in the toxicity of a compound, whereas more applied toxicologists are primarily interested in the relationship between exposure and effect, often with the aim of identifying an exposure level that can be considered safe. Within this context, the dose concept as introduced by Parcelsus at the start of the 16th century is essential (see Section 1.3), i.e. the likelihood of adverse effects depends on the dose organisms are being exposed to.
The processes taking place after exposure of an organism to a toxicant are often divided into toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic processes. Toxicokinetic processes are those that describe the fate of the toxicant in the organism, including processes such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME). These toxicokinetic or ADME processes are sometimes collectively referred to as “What the body does to the substance” and determine the exposure level at the site of toxic action, or internal dose. Toxicodynamic processes are those that describe the evolution of an adverse effect from the moment that the toxicant, or one of its metabolites, interacts with a molecular receptor in the body. This interaction is often referred to as the primary lesion or molecular initiating event (MIE). Toxicodynamic processes are sometimes collectively referred to as “What the substance does to the body” and the chain of events leading to an adverse outcome as the adverse outcome pathway (AOP).
The toxicity of a compound thus depends on toxicokinetic as well as toxicodynamic processes. Traditionally, this toxicity is being determined by exposing whole organisms in the laboratory to the substance of interest, and subsequently monitoring the health status of these organisms. However, as a result of the growing societal pressure to reduce animal testing, as well as the increased mechanistic understanding and improved molecular techniques, this so-called “black box approach” is more and more being replaced by a combination of in vitro toxicity testing and “in silico” predictive approaches. Physiologically-based toxicokinetic (PBTK) models are increasingly used to model the fate of chemicals in the body, resulting in a prediction of the internal exposure. In vitro tests and advanced molecular techniques at the gene (genomics) or protein (proteomics) level may subsequently be used to determine whether these internal exposure levels will trigger adverse effects, although many challenges remain in the prediction of adverse effects based on in vitro test and omics information. Chapter 4 focuses on dose-response relationships, modes of action, species differences in sensitivity and resistance against toxicants.
Ecologists study the interactions between organisms and their environment. Ecology is an important pillar of environmental toxicology, because ecological knowledge is needed to translate effects at the individual level to the ecosystem level; an important endpoint of ecological risk assessments. Such a translation requires specific knowledge, e.g. on life cycles of organisms, natural factors regulating their populations, genetic variability within populations, spatial distribution patterns, and the role organisms play in processes like nutrient cycling and decomposition. Effects considered relevant at the individual level, such as a tumor risk, may turn out to be irrelevant at the population or ecosystem level. Similarly, subtle effects at the individual level may turn out to be highly relevant at the ecosystem level, e.g. behavioral changes after environmental exposure to antidepressants which may affect the population dynamics of fish species. In recent years, there is an increasing interest for the role of the landscape configuration, distribution patterns and their dynamics in environmental toxicology. The spatial configuration of the landscape, the distribution of species and the timing of exposure events turn out to be important determinants of ecosystem effects. The ecological aspects of environmental toxicology will be discussed in Chapter 5.
1.2. DPSIR
Author: Ad Ragas
Reviewers: Frank van Belleghem
Learning objectives
You should be able to:
list and describe the five categories of DPSIR;
structure a simple environmental problem using the DPSIR framework;
describe the position and role of environmental toxicology within the DPSIR framework;
indicate the most important advantages and disadvantages of the DPSIR framework.
Keywords: Drivers, pressures, state variables, impacts, responses
On the one hand, environmental toxicology is rooted in more fundamental scientific disciplines like biology and chemistry where curiosity is an important driver for gathering new knowledge. On the other hand, environmental toxicology is a problem-oriented discipline. As such, it is part of the broader field of environmental sciences which analyses the interactions between society and its physical environment in order to promote sustainability. Within this context, knowledge about the interactions of substances with the biotic and abiotic environment is being generated with the ultimate aim to prevent and address potential pollution problems in society. To be able to contribute optimally, an environmental toxicologist should know how pollution problems are structured and what the role of environmental toxicologists is in analysing, preventing and solving such problems. A widely used framework for structuring environmental problems is DPSIR. DPSIR stands for Drivers, Pressures, State, Impacts and Responses (Figure 1). The aim of the current section is to explain the DPSIR framework.
Communication tool
Communication is essential when analysing and addressing societal issues such as environmental pollution. As an environmental toxicologist, you will have to communicate with fellow scientists to develop a common understanding of the pollution problem, and with policy makers and stakeholders (e.g., producers of chemicals and consumers that are being exposed to chemicals) to explain the scientific state of the art. It is likely that you will use terms like “cause”, “source” and “effects”. However, not everybody will use and perceive these terms in the same way. Some people may argue that a farmer is the main cause of pesticide pollution, whereas others may argue that it is the pesticide manufacturer, or even the increasing world population. Likewise, some people may perceive the concentration of pesticides in water as an effect of pesticide use, whereas others may refer to the extinction of species when talking about effects. These differences may result in miscommunication, complicating scientific analysis and the search for appropriate solutions.
The DPSIR framework is a tool that helps preventing such communication problems. It provides a common and flexible frame of reference to structure environmental issues by describing these in terms of drivers, pressures, state (variables), impacts and responses (Figure 1). Flexibility is an important characteristic of the framework, enabling adaptation to the problem at hand. The DPSIR framework should not be considered a panacea or used as a mould that rigidly fits all environmental issues. Its main strength is that it stimulates communication between scientists, policy makers and other actors and thereby supports the development of a common understanding.
Figure 1.The DPSIR framework is a tool to structure environmental issues by organizing the processes in Drivers, Pressures, State (variables), Impacts and Responses. Source: Ad Ragas.
The framework
The DPSIR framework essentially is a cause-and-effect chain that aims to capture the main processes involved in an environmental issue; from its origin to the changes it triggers in the environment and in society. These processes are organized in five main categories, i.e.:
are the human needs underlying the human activities that ultimately result in adverse effects. An example is the human need for food resulting in the use of pesticides such as neonicotinoids.
are human activities initiated to fulfil human needs and resulting in changes in the physical environment that ultimately lead to - often unforeseen – adverse consequences for the environment or certain groups of society that are perceived as problematic, either now or in the future. An example is the use of neonicotinoids in agriculture.
refers to the status of the physical environment. The state of the environment is often quantified using observable changes in environment parameters, e.g., the concentration of neonicotinoids in water, air, soil and biota.
are any changes in the physical environment or society that are a consequence of the environmental pressures and that are perceived as problematic by society or some groups in society. An example is the increasing bee mortality that is, at least partly, attributed to the use of neonicotinoids. Or the human health effects of pesticides.
are all initiatives developed by society to address the issue. These can range from gathering knowledge to developing policy plans and taking measures to mitigate effects or reduce emissions. Examples include the introduction of a risk-based admission procedure for neonicotinoids, the introduction of more efficient spraying techniques, and the development of environmentally friendly pest control techniques.
In principle, any environmental issue can be captured in a DPSIR. But it is important to realize that the labelling of processes as either drivers, pressures, state (variables), impacts or responses is likely to differ between people since the categories are broadly defined and the level of detail in the processes considered may vary. For example, some people may argue that “agriculture” should be classified as a driver, whereas others may argue it is a pressure. Yet other people may deal with this issue by adapting the DPSIR framework, i.e. by adding a new category called “human activities” that is placed in-between the drivers and the pressures. Another typical issue is the labelling of consecutive changes in the physical environment such as rising CO2 levels, increases in temperature and changes in species abundance. These changes can be labelled as changes in consecutive state variables, i.e. state variables of 1st, 2nd and 3rd order. The idea is that 1st order changes trigger 2nd order changes, e.g. rising CO2 levels triggering a rise in temperature, and 2nd order changes trigger 3rd order changes, in this case a shift in species abundance. The change in species abundance may also be labelled as an impact, provided this change is perceived as problematic by (groups in) society. The category “impacts” is closely related to the protection goals of risk assessment (see the Section Ecosystem services and protection goals). If there is consensus in society that an impact should be prevented, it becomes a protection goal. All these examples illustrate that the DPSIR framework should be applied in a flexible way and that communication is essential.
Environmental toxicology mainly focuses on the Pressures, State and Impacts blocks of the DPSIR chain. The use of chemicals by society, e.g. in agriculture or in consumer products, and their emission to the environment belongs to the Pressure block. The fate of chemicals in the environment and their accumulation in organisms belongs to the State block. And the adverse effects triggered in ecosystems and humans belong to the Impact block. An important step in risk assessment of chemicals (Chapter 6) is the derivation of safe exposure levels such as the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC) for ecosystems or the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for humans. In terms of DPSIR, this boils down to defining an acceptable impact level (e.g. a zero effect level or a 1 in a million tumor risk) and translating this into a corresponding state parameter (e.g. the chemical concentration in air or water). Fate modelling (Section on Modelling exposure) aims to predict soil, water, air and organisms (all State parameters) based on emission data (a Pressure parameter).
Figure 2.The extended DPSIR framework to put more emphasis on the societal dimension, i.e. governance, awareness, resources and knowledge. Source: Ad Ragas.
The DPSIR framework has been criticized because it tries to capture all processes in cause-and-effect relationships, resulting in a bias towards the physical dimension of environmental issues, e.g. human activities, emissions, physical effects and mitigations measures. The societal dimension is less easily captured, e.g. knowledge generation, governance structures, resources needed to implement measures, awareness and societal framing of the problem (Svarstad et al., 2008). Although the DPSIR framework can been adapted to accommodate some of these aspects (e.g., see Figure 2), it should be acknowledged that it has its limitations. Several alternative frameworks have been developed, and some of these better capture the societal dimension (Gari et al., 2015; Elliott et al., 2017). Nevertheless, DPSIR can be a useful framework to contextualize the problems that are addressed in environmental toxicology. It nicely shows why knowledge on the fate and impact of chemicals (state and impacts) is needed to address pollution issues and that the use of this knowledge is always subject to valuation, i.e. it depends on how society values the adverse effects triggered by the pollution. DPSIR is also widely used by national and international institutes such as the European Environment Agency (EEA), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US-EPA) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The DPSIR framework is sometimes also used as a first step in modelling, especially its physical dimension. Once relevant processes have been identified, these are then described quantitatively resulting in models that can be used to predict environmental concentrations or ecological effects of substances based on knowledge about human activities or emissions.
References
Gari, S.R., Newton, A., Icely, J.D. (2015). A review of the application and evolution of the DPSIR framework with an emphasis on coastal social-ecological systems. Ocean & Coastal Management 103, 63-77.
Svarstad, H., Petersen, L.K., Rothman, D., Siepel, H., Wätzold, F. (2008). Discursive biases of the environmental research framework DPSIR. Land Use Policy 25, 116–125.
Elliott, M., Burdon, D., Atkins, J.P., Borja, A., Cormier, R., de Jonge, V.N., Turner, R.K. (2017). “And DPSIR begat DAPSI(W)R(M)!” - A unifying framework for marine environmental management. Marine Pollution Bulletin 118, 27–40.
1.3. Short history
Author: Ansje Löhr
Reviewers: Ad Ragas, Kees van Gestel, Nico van Straalen
Learning Objective:
You should be able to
summarize the history of environmental toxicology
describe the increasing awareness over time of environmental and health risks
From earliest times, man has been confronted with the poisonous properties of certain plants and animals. Poisonous substances are indeed common in nature. People who still live in close contact with nature generally possess an extensive empirical knowledge of poisonous animals and plants. Poisons were, and still are, used by these people for a wide range of applications (catching fish, poisoning arrowheads, in magic rituals and medicines). The first Egyptian medical documentation (written in the Ebers Papyrus) dates from 1550 BC and demonstrates that the ancient Egyptians had an extensive knowledge of the toxic and curative properties of natural products. A good deal is known about the information regarding toxic substances possessed by the Greeks and the Romans. They were very interested in poisons and used them to carry out executions. Socrates, for example, was executed using an extract of hemlock (Conium maculatum). It was also not unusual to use a poison to murder political opponents. Poisons were ideal for that purpose, since it was usually impossible to establish the cause of death by examining the victim. To do so would have required advanced chemical analysis, which was not available at that time.
Early European literature also includes a considerable number of writings on toxins, including the so-called herbals, such as the Dutch “Herbarium of Kruidtboeck” by Petrus Nylandt dating from 1673. Poisoning sometimes assumed the character of a true environmental disaster. One example is poisoning by the fungus Claviceps purpurea, which occurs as a parasite in grain, particularly in rye (spurred rye) and causes the condition known as ergotism. In the past, this type of epidemic has killed thousands of people, who ingested the fungus with their bread. There are detailed accounts of such calamities. For example, in the year 992 an estimated 40,000 people died of ergotism in France and Spain. People were not aware of the fact that death was caused by eating contaminated bread. It was not until much later that it came to be understood that large-scale cultivation of grain involved this kind of risk.
Paracelsus
It was pointed out centuries ago that workers in the mining industry, who came into contact with a variety of metals and other elements, tended to develop specific diseases. The symptoms regularly observed as a result of contact with arsenic and mercury in the mining industry were described in detail by the famous Swiss physician Paracelsus (Figure 1) in his 1567 treatise “Von der Bergsucht und anderen Nergkrankheiten” (miners sickness and other diseases of mining). During the emergence of the scientific renaissance of the 16th century, Paracelsus (1493 - 1541) drew attention to the dose-dependency of the toxic effect of substances. In the words of Paracelsus, “all Ding sind Gifft … allein die Dosis macht das ein Ding kein Gifft is” (everything is a poison … it is only the dose that makes it not a poison). This principle is just as valid today. At the same time, it is one of the most neglected principles in the public understanding of toxicology.
Figure 1:A portrait of Paracelsus (PORTRAIT PRESUME DU MEDECIN PARACELSE (1493-1541) (Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paracelsus.jpg)
A work from the same period “De Re Metallica” by Gergius Agricola (Georg Bauer, 1556), deals with the health aspects of working with metals. Agricola even advised preventive aspects, such as wearing protective clothing (masks) and using ventilation.
Scrotum cancer in chimney sweepers: carcinogenicity of occupational exposure
Another example of the rising awareness of the effects of poisons on human health came with the suggestion, by Percival Pott in 1775, that the high frequency of scrotum cancer among British chimney sweepers was due to exposure to soot. He was the first to describe occupational cancer.
A part of the essay by Percival Pott “The fate of these people seems singularly hard; in their early infancy, they are most frequently treated with great brutality, and almost starved with cold and hunger; they are thrust up narrow, and sometimes hot chimnies, where they are bruised, burned, and almost suffocated; and when they get to puberty, become peculiarly liable to a most noisome, painful, and fatal disease.” See the rest of the original text of his essayhere.
Soot consists of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and their derivatives. The exposure to soot came with concurrent exposure to a number of carcinogens such as cadmium and chromium. From the 1487 cases of scrotal cancer reported, 6.9 % occurred in chimney sweepers. Scrotal and other skin cancers among chimney sweepers were at the same time also reported from several other countries.
Peppered moth in polluted areas
Changes in the environment due to environmental pollution led to interesting insights in the potential of species to adapt for survival and the role of natural selection in it. A famous example of such micro-evolution is the peppered moth, Biston betularia, that is generally a mottled light color with black speckles. This pattern gives them good camouflage against lichen-covered tree trunks while resting during the day. During the industrial revolution, the massive increase in the burning of coal resulted in the emission of dark smoke turning the light trees in the surrounding areas dark. As a consequence, the dark, melanic form of the peppered moth took over in industrial parts of the United Kingdom during the 1800s. The melanic forms used to be quite rare, but their dark color served as a protective camouflage from bird populations in the polluted areas. This allowed them to become dominant in areas with soot-covered trunks. Two British biologists, Cedric Clarke and Phillip Sheppard, discovered this when they pinned dead moths of the two types on dark and light backgrounds to study their predation by birds. The dark moths had an advantage in the dark forests, a result of natural selection. In areas where air pollution has decreased the melanic form became less abundant again.
After the second world war, synthetic chemical production became widespread. However, there was limited awareness of the environmental and health risks. In the 1950s, Environmental Toxicology came to light as a result of increasing concern about the impact of toxic chemicals on the environment. This led toxicology to expand from the study of the toxic impacts of chemicals on man to that of toxic impacts on the environment. An important person in raising this awareness was Rachel Carson. Her book “Silent Spring”, published in 1962, in which she warned of the dangers of chemical pesticides, triggered widespread public concern on the dangers of improper pesticide use.
First have a look at an historical clip on the use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, commonly known as DDT, that was developed in the 1940s as the first modern synthetic insecticide.
Silent Spring – Rachel Carson
DDT is very persistent and tends to concentrate when moving through the food chain. As a consequence, the use of DDT led to very high levels, especially in organisms high in the food chain. Bioaccumulation in birds appeared to cause eggshell thinning and reproductive failure. Because of the increasing evidence of DDT's declining benefits and its environmental and toxicological effects, the United States Department of Agriculture, the federal agency responsible for regulating pesticide use, began regulatory actions in the late 1950s and 1960s to prohibit many of its uses. By the 1980s, the use of DDT was also banned from most Western countries.
Large environmental disasters
As a result of large environmental disasters, awareness amongst the general public increased. An enormous industrial pesticide disaster occurred in 1984 in Bhopal, India, when more than 40 ton of the highly toxic methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from a pesticide plant into the towns located near the plant. Almost 4000 people were killed immediately and 500,000 people were exposed to the poisonous substance causing many additional deaths because of gas-related diseases. The plant was actually initially only allowed to import MIC but was producing it on a large scale by the time of the disaster and safety procedures were far below (international) standards for environmental safety. The disaster made it very clear that this should be changed to avoid other large-scale industrial disasters.
The Sandoz agrochemical spill close to Basel in Switzerland in 1986 was the result of a fire in a storehouse. The emission of large amounts of pesticide caused severe ecological damage to the Rhine river and massive mortality of benthic organisms and fish, particularly eels and salmonids.
At the time of these incidents, environmental standards for chemicals were still largely lacking. The incidents triggered scientists to do more research on the adverse environmental impacts of chemicals. Public pressure to control chemical pollution increased and policy makers introduced instruments to better control the pollution, e.g. environmental permitting, discharge limits and environmental quality standards.
Our Common Future
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development released the report “Our Common Future”, also known as the Brundtland Report. This report placed environmental issues firmly on the political agenda, defining sustainable development as “a development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. Another influential book was “Our stolen future” written by Theo Colborn and colleagues in 1996. It raised awareness of the endocrine disrupting effects of chemicals released into the environment and threatening (human) reproduction by emphasizing it not only concerns feminization of fish or other organisms in the environment, but also the human species.
Please watch the video “Developments in Environmental Toxicology - Interview with two pioneers” included at the start of the Introduction of this book.
SETAC
Before the 1980s, no forum existed for interdisciplinary communication among environmental scientists —biologists, chemists, toxicologists— as well as managers and others interested in environmental issues. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) was founded in North America in 1979 to fill this void. In 1991, the European branch started its activities and later SETAC also established branches in other geographical units, like South America, Africa and South-East Asia. SETAC publishes two journals: Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (ET&C) and Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management (IEAM). SETAC also is active in providing training, e.g. a variety of online courses where you can acquire skills and insights in the latest developments in the field of environmental toxicology. Based on the growth in the society’s membership, the meeting attendance and their publications, a forum like SETAC was clearly needed. Read more on SETAC, their publications and how you can get involved here.
Where SETAC focuses on environmental toxicology, international toxicological societies have also been established like EUROTOX in Europe and the Society of Toxicology (SOT) in North America. In addition to SETAC, EUROTOX and SOT, many national toxicological societies and ecotoxicological counterparts or branches became active since the 1970s, showing that environmental toxicology has become a mature field of science. One element indicative of this maturation, also is that the different societies have developed programmes for the certification of toxicologists.
References
Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin Company.
Colborn, T., Dumanoski, D., Peterson Myers, J. (1996). Our Stolen Future: Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence, and Survival? A Scientific Detective Story. New York: Dutton. 306 p.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p.27.
Dit lesmateriaal is gepubliceerd onder de Creative Commons Naamsvermelding 4.0 Internationale licentie. Dit houdt in dat je onder de voorwaarde van naamsvermelding vrij bent om:
het werk te delen - te kopiëren, te verspreiden en door te geven via elk medium of bestandsformaat
het werk te bewerken - te remixen, te veranderen en afgeleide werken te maken
voor alle doeleinden, inclusief commerciële doeleinden.
