Life Cycle Thinking Blog

As follow on to its Chemical Action Plan on Bisphenol A (BPA), EPA published an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking July 26, 2011, to develop environmental effects and exposure testing. EPA is not addressing human health effects in this notice as there is ongoing testing work already with other agencies. (See a pointed Trevor Butterworth blog about that work here.)

Kind of ironic:
Industry has submitted a petition to EPA to hold off on getting data on List 2 for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) until the Agency reviews and issues final guidance on how they are going to deal with the results they get on the first list of chemicals – especially if the agency is going to change the rules of the game in the middle of testing. Allegedly, one issue of controversy is around Good Laboratory Practices (GLP) – a careful set of documentation, review and recordkeeping requirements to ensure data quality every step of the way for any given written protocol. By following GLP, it should be possible to verify the protocol was followed and any deviations noted so that the test could be replicated (or challenged) by others. Failure to follow GLP leaves open the possibility of biased short-cuts or modifications (or ignoring uncomfortable data points) that make the results unreliable.

Sustainability is about the how and not the why. It is a how to accomplish things with minimum adverse impact now or in the future, preserving resources for continuous use and supporting life using long-range life cycle thinking. Acting sustainably. The “why” is to make this world a better place to live in – a world where everyone has opportunities to thrive physically, intellectually and emotionally. A world of wonderful changes.

Current and recent events and articles

I very much like the article by Daniel Altman and Jonathan Berman, “The Single Bottom Line.” Companies that think about long term profitability – i.e., being sustainable beyond just the next quarter – should make rational decisions that would now be categorized as “Corporate Social Responsibility” or “Sustainable” solely on the basis of whether or not such “do good” actions will enhance the traditional bottom line long term. I think that’s why we see some fairly old line companies leading the way on sustainability and CSR – 3M, P&G, Johnson& Johnson, Unilever, GE. Their culture is to think for the long term with the expectation that they’ll be around in another century. Thus, they view investment in community and the environment to be in their long term interests and are rewarded by loyal employees, investors and customers.