Friends of the Earth (FOE) today condemned the Government for failing to act to protect public health. FOE has called upon the government to act swiftly to ban chemicals that are implicated, inter alia, in rising infertility and testicular cancer among men and breast cancer amongst women. However the Government has responded by prevaricating and calling for still more research. This is a potential crisis situation and If the fall in male fertility continues at the current rate of 2% per annum FOE argue that critically low levels of healthy and active sperm may be reached.

A report out today "Environmental Oestrogens: Consequences to Human Health and Wildlife" confirms that it is "plausible that oestrogens or oestrogen disruptors are responsible." This follows damning research by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Danish EPA.

Roger Lilley, Friends of the Earth's Industry and Pollution Campaigner, said:

"This is a classic case of the Government needing to adopt the precautionary principle. Just as with asthma, there is a huge and growing weight of evidence which demonstrates the need for preventative action."

Roger Lilley continued:

"To call only for more research rather than firm action when there are vast quantities of data already available contradicts Government policy. By the time conclusive evidence is found we could be firing blanks".

Diminished sperm count is a serious matter. Many animals produce up to 1400 times as much sperm as is needed for fertility. In contrast, the average human male produces only 2 to 4 times as much as is needed for fertility[1]. Humans don't have much sperm to spare. A 50 per cent reduction in human sperm count may make significant numbers of males infertile and could therefore take away from men the one thing they indisputably do well: help women propagate the species.

FOE point out that the Government's own Sustainable Development Strategy states:

"When potential damage to the environment is both uncertain and significant, it is necessary to act on the basis of the precautionary principle. This was described in the 1990 White Paper in the following terms:

"Where there are significant risks of damage to the environment the Government will be prepared to take precautionary action to limit the use of potentially dangerous materials or the spread of potentially dangerous pollutants, even where scientific knowledge is not conclusive, if the likely balance of costs and benefits justifies it.[2]"

The Department of Environment has previously cited dioxins, known for their hormone-mimicking effects and included in the chemicals covered by today's report, as an example of where the precautionary principle could apply [3]. The new report concludes (p.70):

"Proof of a cause-effect relationship between exposure to oestrogens in the environment and adverse effects on human reproductive health is likely to remain elusive. Similarly it may not be possible to identify conclusively which agents, acting singly or in combination, are responsible for adverse effects ... it follows that a weight of evidence approach ... will be needed in order to make an appropriate assessment of risk to human health from environmental oestrogens."

Roger Lilley concluded:

"The Government has all the evidence needed to act. What issue could be more appropriate for the application of the precautionary principle than when the ability of our species to reproduce is threatened."

ENDS

Notes to Editors For further discussion on health effects see Prescription for Change - Health and the Environment' Friends of the Earth July 1995 ISBN 1 85750 242 0 [1] Peter K. Working, "Male Reproductive Toxicology: Comparison of the Human to Animal Models," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES VOL.77 (1988), PGS 37-44. [2] Sustainable Development. The UK Strategy. Cm 2426 HMSO, 1994. [3] DOE. A Guide to Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Environmental Protection. HMSO 1995