A Survey of Systematic Evidence Mapping Practice and the Case for Knowledge Graphs in Environmental Health and Toxicology

Systematic evidence mapping offers a robust and transparent methodology for facilitating evidence-based approaches to decision-making in chemicals policy and wider environmental health (EH). Interest in the methodology is growing; however, its application in EH is still novel. To facilitate the production of effective systematic evidence maps for EH use cases, we survey the successful application of evidence mapping in other fields where the methodology is more established. Focusing on issues of “data storage technology,” “data integrity,” “data accessibility,” and “transparency,” we characterize current evidence mapping practice and critically review its potential value for EH contexts. We note that rigid, flat data tables and schema-first approaches dominate current mapping methods and highlight how this practice is ill-suited to the highly connected, heterogeneous, and complex nature of EH data. We propose this challenge is overcome by storing and structuring data as “knowledge graphs.” Knowledge graphs offer a flexible, schemaless, and scalable model for systematically mapping the EH literature. Associated technologies, such as ontologies, are well-suited to the long-term goals of systematic mapping methodology in promoting resource-efficient access to the wider EH evidence base. Several graph storage implementations are readily available, with a variety of proven use cases in other fields. Thus, developing and adapting systematic evidence mapping for EH should utilize these graph-based resources to ensure the production of scalable, interoperable, and robust maps to aid decision-making processes in chemicals policy and wider EH.

Chemicals Denial—A Challenge to Science and Policy

Much research shows that science denial regarding climate change is widespread and problematic for science and scientists, as well as for policy-makers. Climate denial delays goal achievement. As shown in this article, science denial commonly occurs also in the field of chemicals assessment and policy, but the research on the topic is scarce. The peer-reviewed studies that exist mostly concern a limited number of specific cases, such as DDT, CFCs and endocrine disrupting chemicals. The characteristics of ‘chemicals denial’ show similarity with those of climate denial, including reliance on fake experts, cherry-picked facts and attacks on scientists, with a key aspect being the questioning of causal relationships. Considering the gaps between chemicals policy goals and the state of the environment, further scientific exploration in the field is needed. Developing a better coordinated research agenda and a common terminology are therefore warranted strategies. A key concept in such endeavors could be ‘chemicals denial’.

Integrating "Green Chemistry" into the Regulatory Framework of European Chemicals Policy

20 years ago a concept of “Green Chemistry” was formulated by Paul Anastas and John Warner, aiming at an ambitious agenda to “green” chemical products and processes. Today the concept, laid down in a set of 12 principles, has found support in various arenas. This diffusion was supported by enhancements of the legislative framework; not only in the European Union. Nevertheless industry actors – whilst generally supporting the idea – still see “cost and perception remain barriers to green chemistry uptake”. Thus, the questions arise how additional incentives as well as measures to address the barriers and impediments can be provided. An analysis addressing these questions has to take into account the institutional context for the relevant actors involved in the issue. And it has to reflect the problem perception of the different stakeholders. The supply chain into which the chemicals are distributed are of pivotal importance since they create the demand pull for chemicals designed in accordance with the “Green Chemistry Principles”. Consequently, the scope of this study includes all stages in a chemical’s life-cycle, including the process of designing and producing the final products to which chemical substances contribute. For each stage the most relevant legislative acts, together establishing the regulatory framework of the “chemicals policy” in the EU are analysed. In a nutshell the main elements of the study can be summarized as follows: Green Chemistry (GC) is the utilisation of a set of principles that reduces or eliminates the use or generation of hazardous substances in the design, manufacture and application of chemical products. Besides, reaction efficiency, including energy efficiency, and the use of renewable resources are other motives of Green Chemistry. Putting the GC concept in a broader market context, however, it can only prevail if in the perception of the relevant actors it is linked to tangible business cases. Therefore, the study analyses the product context in which chemistry is to be applied, as well as the substance’s entire life-cycle – in other words, the six stages in product innovation processes): 1. Substance design, 2. Production process, 3. Interaction in the supply chain, 4. Product design, 5. Use phase and 6. After use phase of the product (towards a “circular economy”). The report presents an overview to what extent the existing framework, i.e. legislation and the wider institutional context along the six stages, is setting incentives for actors to adequately address problematic substances and their potential impacts, including the learning processes intended to invoke creativity of various actors to solve challenges posed by these substances. In this respect, measured against the GC and Learning Process assessment criteria, the study identified shortcomings (“delta”) at each stage of product innovation. Some criteria are covered by the regulatory framework and to a relevant extent implemented by the actors. With respect to those criteria, there is thus no priority need for further action. Other criteria are only to a certain degree covered by the regulatory framework, due to various and often interlinked reasons. For those criteria, entry points for options to strengthen or further nuance coverage of the respective principle already exist. Most relevant are the deltas with regard to those instruments that influence the design phase; both for the chemical substance as such and for the end-product containing the substance. Due to the multi-tier supply chains, provisions fostering information, communication and cooperation of the various actors are crucial to underpin the learning processes towards the GCP. The policy options aim to tackle these shortcomings in the context of the respective stage in order to support those actors who are willing to change their attitude and their business decisions towards GC. The findings are in general coherence with the strategies to foster GC identified by the Green Chemistry & Commerce Council.

Regulation of Chemicals

This chapter examines the regulation of chemicals, with emphasis on commonalities and differences in regulatory approaches. It begins with a brief overview of key concepts that underlie chemicals regulation, explaining what chemicals regulation is, the hazards and risks associated with chemicals, policy principles, informational inputs, and how chemicals are identified. The chapter then considers the general components of chemicals regulation, namely: screening and prioritization, risk assessment and decision analysis, and risk management. It also discusses regulatory fragmentation, risk management through the supply chain, and the complementary roles of regulation and liability systems. Finally, it shows how common aspects of chemical risk laws fit into the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation and the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (LCSA).