Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 569–579 | Cite as

Challenges and opportunities in stimulating public awareness and engagement on US chemicals policy

  • Caroline E. ScruggsEmail author
  • Rachel B. B. Moore


Consensus is growing among scientists and public health experts that unregulated, potentially hazardous chemicals threaten human and ecosystem viability. The USA is the second largest producer of industrial chemicals, yet very few of these chemicals have been tested for safety due to ineffective regulations. Empirical evidence suggests the American public is largely unaware of the health and environmental challenges posed by toxic substances, and many people are ignorant about chemicals policy and chemical use in consumer products. Chemicals policy reform is under negotiation in the US Congress for the first time in almost 40 years, and the public must be educated about the significance and impact of the various potential policy outcomes as well as how it can engage in reform efforts. Formulating and implementing effective public outreach and engagement methods will require integration of numerous scientific and professional disciplines and communication across traditional disciplinary boundaries. This paper intends to initiate a dialogue in an interdisciplinary venue about why potentially hazardous chemicals do not appear to be a significant concern to the general public and how advocates, academics, scientists, and the media can better work together to improve public education and engagement on chemicals in consumer products and chemicals policy reform. Using interview and focus group findings, evidence of limited science literacy among the American public, and an analysis of media coverage, we begin to address these issues. We invite others to build on this initial work by adding their insights, data, and knowledge to help promote public awareness and engagement on exposures to hazardous chemicals in everyday life and the need for reform of our current system of chemicals management.


Hazardous chemicals Consumer products TSCA Chemicals policy Science literacy Media coverage Public awareness 


  1. Achenbach J (2015) Why science is so hard to believe. The Washington Post (12 February 2015)Google Scholar
  2. Anderson AJ, Mackenzie FT, Lerman A (2005) Coastal ocean and carbonate systems in the high CO2 world of the Anthropocene. Am J Sci 305:875–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews K, Caren N (2010) Making the news: movement organizations, media attention, and the public agenda. Am Sociological Rev 75:841–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Antilla L (2005) Climate of skepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change. Glob Environ Change 15:338–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker N (2008) The body toxic: how the hazardous chemistry of everyday things threatens our health and well-being. North Point Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron S, Beard S, Davis L, Delp L, Forst L, Liebman AK, Linnan L, Punnett L, Welch LS (2011) the health of the low-income workforce: integrating public health and occupational health approaches. An issue paper for discussion at the Eliminating Health and Safety Disparities at Work Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 14 and 15, 2011.Google Scholar
  7. Bergman A, Heindel JJ, Kasten T, Kidd KA, Jobling S, Neira M, Zoeller TR, Becher G, Bjerregaard P, Bornman R, Brandt I, Kortenkamp A, Muir D, Drisse MB, Ochieng R, Skakkebaek NE, Bylehn AS, Iguchi T, Toppari J, Woodruff TJ (2013) The impact of endocrine disruption: a consensus statement on the state of the science. Environ Health Perspect 121:a104–a106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Birnbaum LS (2013) State of the science of endocrine disruptors. Environ Health Perspect 121:a107–a107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2007) Climate change and journalistic norms: a case-study of US mass-media coverage. Geoforum 38:1190–1204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (2015) Safer consumer products regulations, R-2011-02. Accessed 28 January 2015
  11. Campaign for Healthier Solutions (2015) A day late and a dollar short: discount retailers are falling behind on safer chemicals. San Diego, CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  12. Carpenter DO, Arcaro K, Spink DC (2002) Understanding the human health effects of chemical mixtures. Environ Health Perspect 110(supplement 1):25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caumont A (2013) 12 Trends shaping digital news. Pew Research Center. Accessed 28 March 2015
  14. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2009) Fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Atlanta, GeorgiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Clough GW (2010) Increasing scientific literacy: a shared responsibility. Washington, D.C, Smithsonian InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  16. Cucek L, Klemes JJ, Kravanja Z (2012) A review of footprint analysis tools for monitoring impacts on sustainability. J Clean Prod 34:9–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Denison RA (2009) Ten essential elements in TSCA reform. Environ Law Reporter 39:10020–10028Google Scholar
  18. Diamond ML, de Wit CA, Molander S, Scheringer M, Backhaus T, Lohmann R, Arvidsson R, Bergman A, Hauschild M, Holoubek I, Persson L, Suzuki N, Vighi M, Zetzsch C (2015) Exploring the planetary boundary for chemical pollution. Environment Intl 78:8–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen A (2011) Communication, media and environment: towards reconnecting research on the production, content and social implications of environmental communication. Intl Communication Gazette 73:1–2 1 January 2011Google Scholar
  20. Hogue C (2010) Group rallies for an updated chemicals law. Chem Eng News 88:28–31 19 April 2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hogue C (2013) Moms push chemical safety activists, Hollywood star stages “stroller brigade” on Capitol Hill, asking for chemical law reform. Chem Eng News. 91:11–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Contribution of working group I to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 996Google Scholar
  23. Jensen, D 2009 Orion magazine. Forget Shorter Showers. Accessed 21 December 2015.
  24. Kahan DM (2015) Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology 36:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahan DM, Jenkins-Smith H, Braman D (2011) Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research 14(2):147–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kollipara P (2015) U.S. chemical regulation reform gets boost as house passes TSCA rewrite. Science. doi: 10.1126/science.aac6899 23 June 2015Google Scholar
  27. Koopmans R (2004) Movements and media: selection processes and evolutionary dynamics in the public sphere. Theory and Society 33:367–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. MacLeod M, Breitholtz M, Cousins IT, de Wit CA, Persson LM, Ruden C, McLachlan MS (2014) Identifying chemicals that are planetary boundary threats. Environ Sci Tech 48:11057–11063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maniates M (2001) Individualization: plant a tree, buy a bike, save the world? Global Environmental Politics 1(3):31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mazur A, Jintang L (1993) Sounding the global alarm: environmental issues in the United States national news. Social Studies of Science 23:681–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mervis J (2015) Politics, science, and public attitudes: what we’re learning, and why it matters. Science DOI. doi: 10.1126/science.aaa7906 (25 February 2015)Google Scholar
  32. Michigan State University. Scientific literacy: how do americans stack up?. ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 27 2007.
  33. Miller JD (2004) Public understanding of, and attitudes toward scientific research: what we know and what we need to know. Public Understanding of Science 13:273–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Science Board 2014. Science and engineering indicators 2014. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation (NSB 14-01).Google Scholar
  35. ABC News, Washington Post, Stanford University (2007) Concern soars about global warming as world’s top environmental threat. Accessed 29 June 2015
  36. Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M, Peters JAHW (2014) Trends in global CO2 emissions. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  37. Pearson S (2014) Citing increase in known neurotoxins, scientists call for tighter regs. Environment & Energy Daily, 17 February 2014
  38. Pearson S (2015a) Groups struggle to communicate on TSCA reform—especially when many voters think it’s already happened. Environment & Energy Daily, 24 April 2015
  39. Pearson S (2015b) Shimkus, Udall predict TSCA bill will land on Obama’s desk. Environment & Energy Daily, 25 June 2015
  40. Persson LM, Breitholtz M, Cousins IT, de Wit CA, MacLeod M, McLachlan MS (2013) Confronting unknown planetary boundary threats from chemical pollution. Environ Sci Tech 47:12619–12622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pew Research Center (2009) Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago: public praises science; scientists fault public, Media. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  42. Pew Research Center (2015) Public and scientists’ views on science and society. Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  43. Rockström J, Steffen W, Noone K, Persson A, Chapin FS, Lambin EF, Lenton TM, Scheffer M, Folke C, Schellnhuber HJ, Nykvist B, de Wit CA, Hughes T, van der Leeuw S, Rodhe H, Sorlin S, Snyder PK, Costanza R, Svedin U, Falkenmark M, Karlberg L, Corell RW, Fabry VJ, Hansen J, Walker B, Liverman D, Richardson K, Crutzen P, Foley JA (2009) A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Royne MB, Levy M, Martinez J (2011) The public health implications of consumers’ environmental concern and their willingness to pay for an eco-friendly product. J Consumer Affairs 45(2):329–343. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-6606.2011.01205.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sala S, Goralczyk M (2013) Chemical footprint: a methodological framework for bridging life cycle assessment and planetary boundaries for chemical pollution. Integrated Environ Assess and Manag 9:623–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schifano J, Tickner J, Torrie Y (2009) State leadership in formulating and reforming chemicals policy: actions taken and lessons learned. Lowell Center for Sustainable Production, LowellGoogle Scholar
  47. Science (2014) People’s climate march draws 400,000. Science 345:1544–1546. doi: 10.1126/science.345.6204.1544 (26 September 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Scruggs C (2013) Reducing Hazardous Chemicals in Consumer Products: Proactive Company Strategies. J Clean Prod 44:105–114Google Scholar
  49. Scruggs C, Ortolano L (2011) Creating Safer Consumer Products: The Information Challenges Companies Face. Environ Sci Policy 14:605–614Google Scholar
  50. Scruggs C, Van Buren H (2014) Why Leading Consumer Product Companies Develop Proactive Chemical Management Strategies. Bus and Society doi: 10.1177/0007650314536393
  51. Scruggs C, Ortolano L, Schwarzman M, Wilson M (2014) The Role of Chemical Policy in Improving Supply Chain Knowledge and Product Safety. J Environ Studies and Sci 4:132–141Google Scholar
  52. Shapiro M (2007) Exposed: the toxic chemistry of everyday products. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River JunctionGoogle Scholar
  53. Shtulman A, Valcarcel J (2012) Scientific knowledge suppresses but does not supplant earlier intuitions. Cognition 124(2):209–215. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2012.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Smith KR, Corvalán CF, Kjellström T (1999) How much global ill health is attributable to environmental factors? Epidemiology 10:573–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stapleton HM, Klosterhaus S, Keller A, Ferguson PL, van Bergen S, Cooper E, Blum A (2011) Identification of flame retardants in polyurethane foam collected from baby products. Environ Sci Tech 45:5323–5331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stapleton HM, Eagle S, Sjodin A, Webster TF (2012) Serum PBDEs in a North Carolina Toddler Cohort: associations with handwipes, house dust, and socioeconomic variables. Environ Health Perspect 120:1049–1054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steffen W, Crutzen J, McNeill JR (2007) The Anthropocene: are humans now overwhelming the great forces of nature? Ambio 36:614–621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Szasz A (2007) Shopping our way to safety: how we changed from protecting the environment to protecting ourselves. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor DA (2010) Principles into practice: setting the bar for green chemistry. Environ Health Perspect 118(6):A254–A257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. The Associated Press (AP) – NORC Center for Public Affairs Research (2015) American attitudes about global warming and energy policy: issue brief. Accessed 29 June 2015
  61. Tullo AH (2014) C&EN’s global top 50 chemical firms for 2014. Chem & Eng News 92:10–13 28 July 2014Google Scholar
  62. United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) (2006) Strategic Approach to International Chemicals Management—SAICM texts and resolutions of the International Conference on Chemicals Management. United Nations Environment Program, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  63. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2010) What is the TSCA Substance Inventory? Accessed 8 Feb 2010
  64. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2015) Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation Accessed 8 Jul 2015
  65. United States Government Accountability Office (2009) High-risk series: an update. Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  66. Urbina I (2013) Think those chemicals have been tested? The New York Times (13 April 2013)
  67. Washington State Department of Ecology (2015) Children’s Safe Products Act. Accessed 29 January 2015
  68. Washington State Legislature (2015) Chapter 70.240 RCW: Children’s Safe Products. Accessed 28 January 2015
  69. Widener A (2015) The Public versus scientists. Chem & Eng News 93:6(2 February 2015)Google Scholar
  70. Wilson MP, Schwarzman MR (2009) Toward a new U.S. chemicals policy: rebuilding the foundation to advance new science, green chemistry and environmental health. Environ Health Perspect 117:1202–1209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wolfe M (2012) Putting on the brakes or pressing on the gas? Media attention and the speed of policymaking. Policy Studies Journal 40:109–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolfe M, Jones BD, Baumgartner FR (2013) A failure to communicate: agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Commun 30:175–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Woodruff TJ, Zota AR, Schwartz JM (2011) Environmental chemicals in pregnant women in the US: NHANES 2003–2004. Environ Health Perspect 119:878–885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. World Health Organization (2013) State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals—2012: an assessment of the state of the science of endocrine disruptors prepared by a group of experts for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and WHO. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  75. Young N, Dugas E (2011) Representations of climate change in canadian national print media: the banalization of global warming. Canadian Rev of Sociol 48:1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Steffen W, Crutzen P (2010) The new world of the Anthropocene. Environ Sci Tech 44:2228–2231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zota AR, Adamkiewicz G, Morello-Frosch RA (2010) Are PBDEs an environmental equity concern? Exposure disparities by socioeconomic status. Environ Sci Technol 44(15):5691–5692CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© AESS 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Community and Regional Planning Program, School of Architecture and PlanningUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations