As a chemist by training, I’ve always been loath to give credence to unfounded criticism of synthetic chemicals that might stoke up chemophobia. Indeed, on several occasions I have written about how our bodies have evolved to cope with all kinds of chemicals regardless of whether they are synthetic or “natural”. I’ve never been a shill for the chemical industry, although I have been accused of it. But, there is so much misguided nonsense about the supposed absolute risks of synthetic chemicals that someone has to provide a little balance.
On at least one occasion, however, I’ve been thwarted in my efforts to provide just such a balanced point of view the issues surrounding chemical safety. Once it was a blinkered features editor on a well-known popular science magazine who simply refused to see past the word “manmade” and had already decided that if the product being discussed wasn’t derived from an extract of hemp or some other natural material and squeezed out by native bushpeople or some such nonsense then it didn’t deserve a mention in the hallowed pages of the magazine.
As a science chemistry is more than wonderful, it not only sates the inquisitive and repeatedly throws up new puzzles, it also provides us with the materials with which we have built the modern world. As with any human endeavour there is, of course, a price to pay. Many of the essential ingredients of the industrial processes on which our standard of living depends are toxic. There is no way to avoid that issue. Volatile organic compounds are a case in point and several of the most toxic are now banned substances on health and environmental grounds.
Toxicity, however, is about exposure and dose, not about blanket bans. That said, it is sometimes necessary to take a more holistic view of the potential impact of the chemical cocktails with which we surround ourselves in the workplace and in the home. Multiple-chemical sensitivity was a buzz-phrase back in the early 1990s and filled many a column inch in trade magazines such as Chemical & Engineering News (C&EN) and the now-defunct Chemistry in Britain. I’ve still got the pre-PDF “cuttings” mouldering away in a filing cabinet somewhere. But, this syndrome doesn’t seem to feature much in the trade or any other media these days, I suspect its clinical significance like so many other nebulous disorders simply didn’t stand up to close scrutiny.
However, Dimosthenis Sarigiannis and colleagues at the European Commission – Joint Research Centre, at the Institute for Health and Consumer Protection, in Ispra, Italy, seem keen to resurrect the notion that mixtures of chemicals are somehow more worrying than a single chemical acting alone.
Writing in the International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, they assert how current risk assessments address compounds individually whereas real-life human exposure is to mixtures of chemicals present in the environment, the workplace, or consumer products. They suggest that a more connected approach to chemical risk assessment is needed.
Such an approach would combine information from environmental fate analysis, epidemiological data and toxicokinetic models to help us estimate internal exposure. This information might also be coupled to gene expression profiles to provide a signature of exposure to whole classes of toxic compounds so that we might derive a biologically based dose-response estimate. Such an approach will take into account the non-linear relationship between risk and exposure to mixtures of toxic compounds, the team explains.
The team concedes that any such model of risk-exposure will need a large data set to ensure that its predictions are statistically robust. And, I agree that we need to overhaul risk assessment in light of better understanding of how chemical mixtures affect gene expression, metabolism, and other biological processes. They also explain that a linear, additive approach to mixture toxicology is entirely outmoded given the latest evidence on non-additive effects. Again, I agree. This is not chemophobia this is rational assessment…
As with much of medical science, the appearance of a fascinating research paper and an accompanying press release do not usually mean that a new pharmaceutical intervention, a medicine, is ready to be prescribed to patients on the very day that the paper appears. The drug discovery, research, and testing processes are much more long-winded than that.
While being the first to admit and recognizing completely the devastating effects that alcohol can have in the lives of people, I think it is imperitive we get away from calling this behavior a disease. It greatly clouds the whole process and blocks understanding. As an example: Smoking is not a disease. It is frequently considered to be more addictive than alcohol and as addictive as heroin. By improperly framing this discussion, in terms created by AA and Bill Wilson, an ongoing treatment process without a cure is enabled to continue, but broader, deeper understanding is stymied in regards to the general public. Smoking causes diseases…but it is a behavior. Humans, as well as other animals have pleasure stimulus responses. This fact is not a disease…it is basic biology. Concern should be taken when it appears anyone is using a chemical substance to over stimulate this response…or upon using a chemical stimulus they become overwhelmingly driven to seek that chemical in the immediate future. Gambling and “adrenaline addicts” may exhibit similar behaviors but it is very definitely a different dilema.
I get your point, but alcoholism is a behavioural disease and may have an underlying genetic etiology that drives the behaviour. Addiction/dependency associated with other substances ad behaviour might also be served well by calling them diseases too. We can treat diseases, but to most people the idea of treating a behaviour sounds like “training” and may not warrant, in their eyes, the necessary research and attitude shift to allow sufferers of these diseases to be treated. Perhaps “disorder” is a better word…or syndrome…
You’ve given me food for thought with regards to syndrome or disorder. Perhaps I’m simply having trouble with a very basic concept. It seems to me that any person, due to the nature of a biological feedback process, is capable of becoming addicted to something, or engaging in some repititive process. It is simply a matter of finding the right chemical or action that stimulates their own optimal level of pleasure. I understand that there are genetic predispositions to depression, anxiety and impulse control, all of which can be found amongst some or many addicts/alcholics, but my understanding is that at this point there is no specific gene or genetic cluster for “alcoholism” or addiction. Is this still correct information?
I don’t know whether they’ve yet found specific genes for addiction or alcoholism, but there is epidemiological evidence that there is an inherited component to the tendency. At the enzymic level there are issues with the enzymes that metabolise alcohol in some populations as well as the likelihood that some people are less receptive to alcohol. Either of those two factors would be under genetic control and might affect the way someone responds to alcohol. There are too many factors for anyone to ever be able to pull out a gene (cluster) for addiction, I’m sure, but an errant protein that fails to respond in the same way in one individual as it does in others might lead to a synergistic effect with environmental factors (peer pressure, for instance) that leads to someone imbibing more of their drug of choice than they otherwise might and that then might have a cascade effect on neuronal pathways leading to addiction…