A meta-analysis of “countless” peer-reviewed studies and interviews with dozens of subject matter experts identified a threat that researchers say is as grave as planetary warming is flying frighteningly under our radar, the Guardian reported.
What’s happening?
“Novel entities” at first may conjure up images of newly established businesses or ghosts, but the concept is more unsettling than an encounter with the latter.
The Guardian indicated that an insidious form of chemical pollution poses a threat “of a similar order as climate change,” citing a report from Deep Science Ventures, a company focused on research and enterprise.
DSV started with a question: “What if one of the biggest threats to our health and planet is invisible, yet found in our air, food, and water?”
Enter novel entities, “chemicals not found in nature,” 100 million of which, DSV estimates, have been introduced by the industrial economy. In its report, DSV established that these substances have much “potential for unwanted geophysical and/or biological effects.”
Harry Macpherson, senior climate associate at DSV, noted that people are often shocked by how unmonitored the issue truly is, and went on to provide an alarmingly relatable example.
“Maybe people think that when you walk down the street breathing the air; you drink your water, you eat your food; you use your personal care products, your shampoo, cleaning products for your house, the furniture in your house; a lot of people assume that there’s really great knowledge and huge due diligence on the chemical safety of these things. But it really isn’t the case,” Macpherson said, per the Guardian.
Why is DSV’s report so concerning?
Macpherson wasn’t wrong — even diligent consumers who take steps to avoid plastic or other potential contaminants often can’t rely on manufacturers’ disclosures for everything from what’s in our kitchens to how objects might adversely impact household health and the planet.
DSV’s review noted that novel entities evade detection, emphasizing “critical shortcomings in current toxicity assessment, research, and testing methods” to quantify the vast array of adverse impacts on humans — with particularly pronounced effects on reproductive health.
“The way that we’ve generally done the testing has meant that we’ve missed a lot of effects,” Macpherson observed, and DSV’s “Novel Entities: A Ticking Time Bomb” report bore that out.
“Two million lives and 53 million disability-adjusted life-years … were lost in 2019 due to exposure to selected chemicals,” it read, highlighting exposure to lead and occupational contamination as the “biggest drivers of death.”
What’s being done about it?
Given the framing of the report, “nothing” appeared to be an unsettling answer to that conclusion, but Macpherson advocated for serious research and funding and a shockingly simple partial solution.
Researchers “obviously don’t want less funding” for climate research. “But this we think — really, proportionally — needs more attention,” he added, before expressing some optimism about the potential for a straightforward, consumer-driven fix.
“There isn’t necessarily the need for a massive collective action; it can just be demand for safer products, because people want safer products,” Macpherson said.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don’t miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Source link
