Spurred on by innovations in organic chemistry and chemical engineering and seeking compliance with the regulation for Registration, Evaluation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) of the European Union and the Precautionary Principle, chemical producers are adapting their processes to conform to the practices of “green chemistry” (also known as “sustainable chemistry”).
The US EPA, which is currently almost paralyzed in its ability to perform its duties, defines green chemistry as “the design of chemical products or processes that reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous substances.” In the absence of a strong EPA, the momentum of the private sector toward sustainability and the global influence of the EU in trade ensure that there will be continued progress toward sustainable chemistry for years to come.
However, we should not simply assume that green chemistry will wash away (solubilize?) the harm and uncertainty of the worse aspects of conventional production. Green or sustainable chemistry needs to be subjected to hazard evaluations (toxic and safety), risk assessment, and quality assurance in the same way as conventional (and often soon to be obsolete) production. It would be counterproductive if unintended consequences or uncertainties impeded adoption, such as the concerns (rightly or wrongly) that have shadowed the safety of nanomaterials.
We should be asking ourselves probing questions about green chemistry and learning from the sustainable chemistry experience to inform sustainable development in technologically advanced countries:
1. What is “green chemistry” in health terms? We know what it should mean for sustainable development and we know what it means in chemistry, but what does it mean for occupational health?
2. Is “green chemistry” a subset of the universe of chemistry or is it the future of chemical engineering?
3. Is there a demonstrably (meaning evidence-based) lower risk for occupational health in green chemistry processes and operations, as one would expect? If not, why not? If so, is it because the processes are safer or the plants are newer?
4. Are there unique hazards or characteristic issues of green chemistry processes and operations that require identification and attention? Are we repeating the experience with biotechnology (lowering risk by substituting less toxic processes and products and shifting outcomes from toxicity to allergy and other less obvious outcomes)?
5. What are the conspicuous failures of green chemistry and what are their health implications? (Example: poorly performing disinfectants.)
6. How can green chemistry reduce health disparities and promote environmental justice?
7. Is it possible to make intentional health gains through sustainable development incorporating green chemistry? In other words, not just a byproduct of cleaning up and reducing health disparities but as a deliberate goal based on planning and implementation of sustainability initiatives?
8. Is it possible to develop a regenerative or health-promoting chemistry, that actually leaves people in better shape and with lower health risk after an encounter than before? (Example: the “regenerative building” movement, using catalytic surface materials to trap and break down air pollution.)
© Tee L. Guidotti, 2018, All rights reserved. A more detailed version of this piece will appear shortly as an editorial in Archives of Environmental and Occupational Health.