Personal Note From Patrick, The Editor

Dear Reader, it's nice to have you back.
​
Today is more of a storytelling lesson. Unfortunately though, we will have to do without a happy ending...
​
Still, learning about regrettable substitutions is important, as it shows us the dire consequences of premature change.
​
But remember, more often than not, the solutions that ended up being regrettable were driven by haste and a focus on profit.

These instances also highlight that blunt regulatory pressure is never a solution.
​
Now, let's dive in:

Number Of The Day

​A study found that even after 27 months in natural environments, no type of plastic bag (conventional, biodegradable, or compostable) showed significant signs of molecular degradation, although all bag types disintegrated into pieces when exposed to air. Still, only the compostable one was unable to carry items after three years when not in direct contact with the environment.

27

Exploring Regrettable Substitutions

Good intent doesn’t equal good outcome.

A regrettable substitution describes the switch from one chemical to another to reduce environmental impact but thereby creating unintended consequences. These might manifest as poor long-term performance, unexpected toxicity, or environmental impacts.

The term regrettable solution also exists, overall referring to products, processes, and thus, also applicable to chemicals.

The best way to demonstrate these mistakes is to look at a few examples:

Toxic Glues in Cushion Manufacturing

In 2002, the U.S. Clean Air Act restricted the use of trichloroethylene (TCE) in manufacturing due to its detrimental effects on the ozone layer. TCE had been widely used in adhesives, including those applied in foam cushion factories.

In response, manufacturers began switching to methylene chloride, a solvent that was ozone-safe. However, it turned out that methylene chloride is both a carcinogen and a neurotoxin. Exposure resulted in serious consequences for workers in industries that made this switch. Over 30 workers died annually, with others becoming sick due to prolonged exposure.

In response to rising fatalities and illnesses, the OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) imposed stricter safety limits on methylene chloride. However, the problem didn't end there.

Many companies in the foam cushion industry transitioned to 1-bromopropane (nPB), a solvent with no established permissible exposure limit. In fact, this chemical had already been flagged for causing neurological damage and infertility when inhaled at low levels over long periods.

Despite decades of warnings, its use grew 15-fold over six years, proving yet again that replacing one toxic substance with another is an always present risk.

You know it too: Bisphenol A vs. Bisphenol S

Bisphenol A (BPA) was widely used in plastics and resins. It became notorious for its role as an endocrine disruptor, interfering with the body’s hormonal systems because of its structural similarity to estradiol.

After a public outcry and regulatory scrutiny, many manufacturers began replacing BPA with Bisphenol S (BPS).

Surprise! It turned out that BPS is structurally similar to BPA and poses many of the same health risks, including endocrine disruption. Although consumers appear to be more eco-conscious than ever, their demand for "green" products is a dorado for greenwashing. Obviously, products proudly labeled as "BPA-free" but containing BPS or Bisphenol F would generate high sales—unless consumers educate themselves and push for transparency.

Not Even Natural Means Safe

Just because something is found in nature does not mean it is safe. Snake toxins might be an obvious example. However, safrole, a component of sassafras oil, was once used as a flavoring agent but was banned in 1960 due to its carcinogenic and mutagenic properties. Camphor, a natural substance used in medicinal products, can cause acute toxicity, skin sensitization, and eye irritation when used improperly.

Applying The Knowledge

So, what are the reasons regrettable solutions make it to market? Here are seven to avoid:

Lack of Hazard Data

Whenever new chemicals are introduced without comprehensive hazard data, it is easy to fall prey to being agnostic about potential dangers. Especially long-term toxicity assessments can be hard to generate and find.

Of course, any additional tests and delays in selling will translate to extra costs - a problem for money obsessed companies.

Failure to Consider Functional Use

Sometimes, an alternative chemical is chosen because it is less toxic or harmful to the environment, but its performance in its application is not adequately assessed. For example, higher volumes or additional chemicals to compensate for inferior functionality may create more waste or environmental harm over time.

Failure to Consider Exposure

Even if a new material is less toxic in controlled settings, it does not necessarily mean it will remain so in practical applications. This includes understanding interactions with and handling by people, wildlife, and microorganisms.

Endpoint Trade-offs

As we saw last week, there is often no perfect solution. Alternative chemicals may solve one environmental problem but create another in the process.

For example, reducing carbon emissions may lead to increased water consumption or pollution in other areas. This point remains somewhat subjective, depending on which alternatives are preferred. Note that regional differences in resource availability or disposal capacity might be decisive.

Failure to Consider the Lifecycle

A chemical might appear sustainable during its production or use phase but may cause significant harm when raw materials are sourced or when disposed of. Without a full lifecycle analysis, these impacts remain hidden. Attempting to create a circular economy can help; for example, returning “waste” to the manufacturing stream avoids the risk of introducing new environmental risks.

Finally, a Word of Caution

Lack of transparency will always remain a danger—i.e., companies promoting a “green” product/chemical without disclosing critical information and hiding the less sustainable aspects of its lifecycle.

Upcoming Lesson:

How Sustainability Improve Research Outcomes

Asking You

How many diseases have shown an explicit association to Bisphenol A?

How We Feel Today

If you have a wish or a question, feel free to reply to this Email.​
Otherwise, wish you a beatiful week!
See you again the 24th : )

Find the previous lesson click - here -​

​
Edited by Patrick Penndorf
Connection@ReAdvance.com
If you think we do a bad job: Unsubscribe​