From: bjgaed@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: sci.chem
Subject: Re: chemophobia
Date: 17 Aug 92 07:05:27 CST
Distribution: sci
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <ARA.92Aug13175314@camelot.ai.mit.edu>, ara@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Allan Adler) writes:
> 
> I was informed today that the next meeting of the ACS will feature as a topic
> Chemophobia, the fear of chemicals in the general populace. It seems to me that
> there must be some kind of vested interest behind such a discussion, but I
> might be wrong. Anyway, my questions are:
> (1) who is it that is worried about chemophobia?
> (2) how diligently do they distinguish between irrational fear of anything
>     that sounds like a chemical and informed concern about toxic substances?
> (3) what are they planning to do about chemophobia?
> (4) who do they think are the villains who promote chemophobia?
> 
> Allan Adler
> ara@altdorf.ai.mit.edu
-- 

and Vince Summers replies:

*I can't answer the above questions, but I can say as a fellow chemist 
that
88I understand the so-called irrational fear of the populace.  They've 
been
*lied to, spit upon, etc., in the past.  Companies use obscure names in
*listing ingredients of their products, etc.  Then they are told 
"better
*living through chemistry".  Even if this particular company is 
saintly,
*because of all the other mistreatments the public will disbelieve them
*when they say this.  It is not the chemist's fault---it is government
*and greedy commerce that have done this.  Anyway, are all chemists
*safety conscious?  Just a little input.
*     Vince Summers
*     vsummers@polaris.cv.nrao.edu               

As with any new term just entering the language, the definition of 
"chemophobia" (even its pronunciation) is probably somewhat subjective 
and prone to wide variation.

As a working definition, I use:

Chemophobia:  fear of chemicals *out of all proportion* to the risk 
of injury in any specific situation of exposure.

For example, do I *fear* hydrogen cyanide?  Normally not, when I 
handle it in a system that has been designed for it, in a fume hood 
with sufficient interlocks and alarms that a "worst case" release is 
avoided or adequately contained without exposure of me or others to 
a harmful concentration of this chemical.  

Would I *fear* hydrogen cyanide if I found out my neighbor's kid was 
experimenting with sodium cyanide and acid in his basement?  Yes!!! 
(Don't laugh.  Some years ago an acquaintance of my son, then in 
Junior High, asked me how to make cyanide gas.)

Another example:  If I lived next to a smelter that emitted large 
quantities of selenium into the air would I be afraid of selenium 
poisoning and take action to stop the pollution?  Yes, because of the 
cumulative effect of long-term selenium exposure.  

Would I be aflraid if I found out that the local farmers were 
spreading sub-ppm quantities of selenium on the fields where they grow 
vegetables for the local market and take action to ban selenium 
treatment of farmland?  No, because selenium is a necessary nutrient 
for plants and animals.  If the soil is deficient in selenium the 
farmer gets a poor crop and I get nutritionally inferior broccoli at 
the local vegetable stand.  Without very low levels of selenium in my 
diet I would become very sick.

Who is worried about chemophobia?  Most publicly, the chemical 
industry.  And I cannot refute what Summers says.  No matter what the 
chemical industry says, because of the past record of that industry in 
dealing with the public they are largely disbelieved.

I don't know if "education" of the public in science so that they can 
distinguish between irrational fear and informed concern is possible.  
The public is going to have to depend on scientists to interpret the 
science involved in a specific situation to them.  Becuase of the past 
history pointed out by Summers, the public has chosen to disbelieve 
*all* scientists.  The only thing the industry can do is to try to be 
truthful and admit it when they just don't know the answers.  If we as 
scientists can lose some of our arrogance maybe we can convince the 
public that we don't know everything and sometimes have to proceed on 
partial information, and sometimes we are wrong.  *Most*  
environmental and product liability situations proceed mostly from 
ignorance and not from direct malfeasance.

Another aspect of chemophobia is an attempt to regulate and ameliorate 
specific exposure situations without prioritizing the risk involved.  
The Alar on apples scare is a prime example.  Did the residues on 
Alar-treated apples represent a risk, however small, to children who 
eat those apples?  Probably yes.  Did Meryl Streep cause more harm to 
children from the air pollution generated by traveling to the hearings 
where she testified?  Almost certainly yes.  We are asked to spend 
vast amounts of money and other resources ameliorating very low 
exposures to toxics.  Given the assumption that the economic and 
technical resources of the planet are limited, is that not unwise?  
Are there not *more efficient* ways to improve the health of the human 
race than trying to get dioxin exposures below 1 ppb?

Who promotes chemophobia?  I don't think there are many real *villains* 
doing this.  A few demagogues, perhaps, but that is not enough to 
explain the phenomenon.  There is a lot of irresponsible media 
reporting (the 60 Minutes report on Chemlawn, for example, which they 
later retracted), but I don't know how to solve that problem and still 
maintain a free press.  Perhaps the symposium mentioned will get more 
to the bottom of this phenomenon.  

Back to who should be concerned.  Every scientist, IMO.  Most of us 
have been more or less constrained in our work, and our productivity 
lowered, by *irrational* regulations.  Note that this is *not* a call 
for removal of all regulations.  I for one would rather not return to 
the "bad old days" when I started in chemistry.  But it seems more and 
more that new regulations don't improve health and environment more 
than by very slight increments at huge cost, while many other very 
real problems in our society are not addressed for lack of resources.  

This phobia is not limited to chemicals.  Biotechnology, all science 
that deals with radioactive materials (physics, chemistry, biology, 
medicine, engineering, etc.), materials, food, electricity, ...
The list goes on and on, and more and more areas of life, mostly 
technological, are suffering from irrational fears out of all 
proportion to risk.  All of these areas require some reasonable 
regulation, but not to the extent we see today.

These are my own opinions and in no way am I speaking for Monsanto 
company.  That company's views on this subject have been made quite 
public, and in some aspects may differ from mine.

I welcome comment.


--Electric Monk            (Bruce Gaede); 
                            e-mail: bjgaed@ccmail.monsanto.com

"...and then time started seriously to pass."
--Douglas Adams, _Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency_
Newsgroups: sci.chem