Farms, schools, homes, natural habitats, they are all being more and more inundated by the chemicals that we use in manufacturing, or to create the
products that we buy every day. It is no doubt obvious that the unused waste products we have created are filling up the unseen or unvisited places.
As "consumers" we have undoubtedly and unwittingly adopted the philosophy of out of sight out of mind. Now plain evidence is showing that the out of
sight effects of our unwise approach is creeping into our very bodies and starting to have effects not only on our children, but on theirs, as well as
future generations as far forward as the eye can see. It is our responsibility to try and clean up our current mess, and try and live a little cleaner
from now on.
I realize that some of the articles that I provide are somewhat long winded, but the idea behind science based policy is in my opinion a crucial one
for going forward and creating a sustainable lifestyle. It defines an approach that addresses past environmental mistakes as well as showing us the
way to move forward. There is a critical need today for a more healthy approach both to ourselves as well as our environment. It is my hope to plant
the seed of this idea in as many places that I can. I hope that you form your own opinion about it and decide to promote it yourself whenever
I'll let this gentleman explain science based policy a bit from his prospective in an introduction of the idea on
The relationship between science and policy is an important topic in evidence-based public health policy and practice (1). It seems logical to
assume that as scientific research generates more quality findings, policymakers will make better decisions. However, numerous underlying obstacles
A systematic framework can be used to describe the key components that link science to policy. The framework, which consists of three areas that are
subdivided into 12 essentials (basic elements), reveals issues and solutions related to science-based decision making. In this article, policy is
defined broadly to include not only legislation but also "prudence or wisdom in the management of affairs" and "a definite course or method of
action selected from among alternatives in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions" (3). Therefore, the term
policymakers may encompass public health practitioners, public health researchers, and even the general public, because members of the general public
make health decisions for themselves and their families.
Science-based policy involves producing high-quality scientific evidence, building bridges between the producers and users of scientific evidence, and
incorporating scientific evidence into health policy and practice (4). Accordingly, the three primary areas in science-based policy are knowledge
generation, knowledge exchange, and knowledge uptake (Table 1). Within these three areas, the 12 essentials are categorized as follows: knowledge
generation — 1) credible design, 2) accurate data, 3) sound analysis, and 4) comprehensive synthesis; knowledge exchange — 5) relevant content, 6)
appropriate translation, 7) timely dissemination, and 8) modulated release; and knowledge uptake — 9) accessible information, 10) readable message,
11) motivated user, and 12) rewarding outcome (Table 1).
I have heard the term "Science Based Policy" a few times over that last couple of years and although it is a somewhat unheard of idea, it rings true
to me. I see some promise in the approach. There needs to be some light shed on the efforts being made into spreading the idea.
One letter I found shows some of the struggles going on in efforts to use this approach.
CHaMP letter to the EPA shown Here
Under the Inventory Update Rule (IUR), which provides EPA with chemical use
and exposure data, only manufacturers are required to report. EPA gets no information from downstream processors, distributors or users of the
chemical even though they are typically in the best position to know and report accurate information on chemical use.
The IUR data provided often fails to provide any information on a chemical’s use in consumer products. One of the greatest potential sources of
children’s exposure to toxic chemicals is through the use of consumer products in the home.
This means that chemicals that are highly hazardous but to which EPA asserts people are only moderately exposed, or chemicals that are moderately
hazardous but to which people are highly exposed, are downgraded in priority. This failure to err on the side of caution, especially given the very
limited data available to EPA, is likely to result in decisions that do not adequately protect public health.
A 2004 study in Minneapolis of children’s exposures to volatile organic compounds, including dichlorobenzenes, found that exposures to VOCs in the
home had the largest influence on children’s personal exposure to most compounds, and that the home and personal exposures were well above health
benchmarks for several compounds, especially for p-dichlorobenzene.
I'm not going to go into some of the damaging effects of chemicals in the household. There is numerous amounts of research as well as theories having
to do with the rise of autism, diabetes, the decline of human sperm count etc., not to mention environmental effect.
The struggle behind this idea has been going on for decades. It is a hindrance to the capitalist society in many ways. Limiting the behavior of our
manufacturing facilitates as well as resource harvesting practices has a negative result on our economy.
I found in an article about
Energy Secretary Chu a nobel prize winning scientist
“GDP growth in the United States has limped along at the anemic annual rate of 0.6 percent while China’s economy has soared at the annual rate
of 9.12 percent, more than 15 times our own,” says Daniel Kish, senior VP with the Institute for Energy Research. “Clearly, the policies and
priorities of Steven Chu’s energy department have benefitted our global competitors and intensified the economic pain felt by millions of unemployed
My question to you would be, is it worth it? What kind of future do we want for our children? If it takes ten years of high unemployment while we
gather our heads together and learn to treat our environment with the respect and love that it deserves, would it be worth it?
This little girl wants to know...