|
|
|
Interview with CHE Partner, Gwynne Lyons, BPharm
 Steve Heilig: Tell us your own background - how did you come to your work?
I started my working life as a pharmacist, and it was the destruction of the ozone layer that finally threw me into hardcore environmental activism. I was at a loss to understand how other pharmacists seemed completely unperturbed to go on selling hair sprays containing CFCs. If health care was what we were supposed to be about, why did every pharmacy shop in the UK have about six square meters of shelf space devoted to selling products which would ultimately cause skin cancer? To cut a long story short, I ended up as senior research officer at Friends of the Earth in London, and some years later, helped prepare the FoE packs for delegates negotiating the Montreal Protocol.
I have also been involved in countryside protection issues, and for example, as a local Friends of the Earth activist, organized a campaign against a proposed road scheme which would damage a special wetland. I like the Mark Twain quote "You see my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to its institutions or its office-holders. The country is the real thing, the substantial thing, the eternal thing; it is the thing to watch over, and care for, and be loyal to; institutions are extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter disease, and death."
What is your primary mission in your work?
Elizabeth Salter Green (the ex-head of WWF-UK's toxic program) and I have just jointly set up a new UK charity, CHEM (Chemicals Health and Environment Monitoring) Trust, with a mission to protect humans and wildlife from harmful chemicals. Easier said than done!
We set up CHEM Trust because WWF-UK decided to close their toxics program, but were willing to provide initial seed funding for a new organization to focus solely on the effects of chemicals. Unfortunately, there is just so much to do, because now both FoE and Greenpeace UK have also stopped working on chemicals. We feel it is so important to keep this issue alive and kicking in the UK, particularly as the UK is such an influential Member State. Our web site will be launched shortly at www.chemtrust.org.uk.
What are the most important recent developments in your work, scientific or otherwise?
The negotiations of the new EU Chemicals Regulation, REACH (which stands for Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals), provided an opportunity to try and get a more precautionary regulatory framework for industrial chemicals. I believe we owe a lot to Sweden, who played a pivotal role in increasing other countries' understanding of the underlying philosophy. It has been a rough ride, and I think the sheer volume of industry lobbying to undermine the proposal was awesome.
The EU has also benefited from the US workshops, research and consensus statements that have addressed endocrine disruption. The EU has an EDC strategy, and although the momentum on this has rather slipped during the REACH negotiations, at least the European Commission has funded 145 million euros worth of research to explore some of the concerns. Of course, the challenge is to increase the amount of vital research funding for this issue, or at the very least, maintain this level of funding.
What successes have most encouraged you in your work recently?
The concern generated by WWF's biomonitoring reports, and the WWF report highlighting the contaminants in the food chain, helped turn the debate on the new EU Chemicals Regulation, REACH, back to focusing on the potential benefits to health rather than just the costs to industry.
Another more tangible success was to get REACH to include a requirement for the European Chemicals Agency to publish on its web site a list of some of the worst chemicals. This so called 'candidate list' will be drawn up in advance of these chemicals being subject to more stringent controls on their use. Hopefully this will encourage industry to de-select these chemicals sooner rather than later.
What have been some of the greatest recent challenges?
Trying to get Ministers and politicians to understand and engage in some of the important details of the text of REACH. Small changes to the wording of proposed legislation can have profound effects.
I also think there is also a conceptual problem, in that Ministers say they would, of course, regulate chemicals that cause harm. However, they do not seem to realize how difficult it is to secure proof of the effects of any particular individual chemical on humans, and how long this could take. The precautionary principle comes with so much baggage; I sometimes doubt that using this term is the best starting point to try to explain this.
What would you regard as the most significant potential future developments in your field?
I think over the next decade scientists will develop a greater understanding of how chemicals cause disease and derail brain function. However, getting widespread acceptance of this outside academic institutions and getting the necessary policy responses will require much more back-up from the medical professions. The problem is many seem far too busy treating people to want to bother about a detailed analysis of the potential causes and which of the causal factors could be mitigated.
With regard to the adverse effects of chemicals, in the long run, I think it would be naive to believe that there will not be another asbestos-type disaster. I also think that epigenetics will become a really big issue, which will ultimately change how we think about evolution and inheritance, and bring about more prudence in our use of chemicals.
An important development in regulation could be the review of how endocrine disruptors are covered in REACH. This is mandated to take place within six years, although it is possible that it may get delayed just as REACH itself did. However, whatever amendments or text is finally agreed, it is pretty meaningless unless there is the political will behind this to effectively regulate chemicals with these properties. In the short term, there are important potential gains to be made in getting regulatory action to better address the "cocktail effect."
What or who continues to inspire you in your work?
The Trustees of CHEM Trust are my heroes. I feel very flattered that such well-known and esteemed people think we are worthy of their time.
I am also inspired by dedicated, and tireless people like Theo Colborn, Lou Guillette, Ted Schettler, Pete Myers, Fred vom Saal, Ana Soto, Andreas Kortenkamp, and Neils Skakkebaek. I remember about 8 years ago hearing a talk by Neils where he put up slides of babies with hypospadias. I got just an inkling of how parents must feel when confronted with this.
Any thoughts about CHE?
It has such a great atmosphere, and that warmth and inclusiveness comes across both on the web site, in the phone-in conferences, and in the listservs. It has very successfully brought together a real band of comrades who want to understand what science has to tell us, and use that knowledge to protect people. Top
Posted: 13 August 2007
|
