Communications and the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ISRTP Workshop December 13, 2010

Overview Context: 1996 What’s in a name? EDSTAC recommendations on communications EPA’s communications Market de-selection concerns Industry’s watch-outs

Media Context in 1996 Our Stolen Future Gender Benders Alligators in the lake “You’re not half the man your grandfather was.” Breast cancer rates: 1 in 9 Science Magazine

What’s in a name? What’s an “endocrine disruptor”? Wingspread definition Weybridge definition Concern: chemicals were being labeled as EDs prior to there being any test data to support such claims Concern: market was starting to respond

EDSTAC Recognized that effective communication about the EDSP and its results would be critical to its success. A communications workgroup looked at communication issues at key decision points in the EDSP framework and in implementation. Recognized the limitations that must be placed on information interpretation.

EDSTAC (cont.) Recognized a key concern: “…information could be misused to label chemicals as ‘endocrine disruptors’ prior to the existence of evidence to support such a claim. Such potential misuse of information could lead to unnecessary and undue concern, along with a failure to focus society’s attention on those substances that are most likely to be endocrine disruptors. Such a result could, in the end, create problems serving the interest of no one.” (EDSTAC Report, p. 6-3)

EDSTAC Communications Principles Processes and results should be open and transparent Results should be interpreted and communicated within context Limitations and uncertainties of data and results should be articulated clearly Changes in scientific evidence should be communicated clearly Quality assurance must be provided for accurate and current public databases

EDSP Processes Prioritization Tier 1 Screening Tier 2 Testing Hazard Assessment

Prioritization What is the list ? What isn’t the list? What’s the name of the list? EPA context: “…the public should not presume that the listing of a chemical or substance indicates in any way that EPA currently suspects that such chemical or substance interferes with the endocrine systems of humans or other species simply because it has been listed for screening under the EDSP.”

Prioritization (cont.) “At the present time, EPA believes that these chemicals or substances should be candidates, at least for screening purposes, under EDSP testing based only on their pesticide registration status and/or because such substances may occur in sources of drinking water to which a substantial population may be exposed.”

Tier 1 Screening Communication about what it is for and about decisions resulting from it Tier 1 determines whether chemicals interact with estrogen, androgen or thyroid hormone systems Communicate results in neutral terms: -- No further screening or testing required -- Further analysis requiring Tier 2 testing

Tier 2 Testing Communication about what Tier 2 testing will tell us: does the interaction with EAT hormone systems result in adverse effects? Communication about results in neutral terms: -- no evidence of endocrine mediated adverse effects -- evidence of endocrine mediated adverse effects -- may trigger additional testing or a hazard assessment

Communicating to Customers Customers’ demands in 1996 EDSP development’s impact on those demands How EPA communicates about the priority list, and about the Tier 1 and Tier 2 results will be key to how customers respond and what they demand.

Take-Aways Advocate with EPA throughout the process about the importance of communicating information about the EDSP in its appropriate context and in neutral terms Use balanced, neutral communications with your customers Repeat EPA’s words wherever possible Don’t be dismissive, don’t over-state