Background: Scientists who communicate societally relevant information face challenging contexts in which misinformation, disinformation, hype, and spin are prevalent. As a result, they often face difficult decisions about how to frame their work in a socially responsible manner.
Objectives: Drawing from the literature on science communication and framing, we identify tradeoffs that environmental health scientists face when deciding how to communicate their work, and we propose strategies for handling these tradeoffs. We use research on the human health effects of environmental endocrine disruptors as a case study to illustrate these challenges and strategies.
Discussion: We examine four major frames (i.e., ways of packaging information that draw attention to facets of an issue or topic) in discussions of the effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on sexual and neural development and obesity. We show how these frames can be beneficial (e.g., focusing public attention on environmental health threats and promoting actions to address environmental pollution) while simultaneously having harmful effects (e.g., contributing to stigmatization of particular groups or the promotion of harmful political ideologies).
Conclusions: Researchers who seek to responsibly communicate societally relevant work can employ several strategies to mitigate difficult tradeoffs, including a) striving for sensitivity to the social context and its relationship to their framing choices, b) choosing to avoid some frames, c) employing frames that alleviate ethical tensions, d) fostering education to alleviate harms, e) developing interdisciplinary and community collaborations, and f) working with institutions like scientific societies and journals to develop guidance on responsible communication practices. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14527.
Background: The prevalence of toxic chemicals in US commerce has prompted some states to adopt laws to reduce exposure. One with broad reach is California's Proposition 65 (Prop 65), which established a list of chemicals that cause cancer, developmental harm, or reproductive toxicity. The law is intended to discourage businesses from using these chemicals and to minimize consumer exposure. However, a key question remains unanswered: Has Prop 65 reduced population-level exposure to the listed chemicals?
Objective: We used national biomonitoring data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to evaluate the impact of Prop 65 on population-level exposures.
Methods: We evaluated changes in blood and urine concentrations of 37 chemicals (including phthalates, phenols, VOCs, metals, PAHs, and PFAS), among US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) participants in relation to the time of chemicals' Prop 65 listing. Of these, 11 were listed prior to, 11 during, and 4 after the biomonitoring period. The remaining 11 were not listed but were closely related to a Prop 65-listed chemical. Where biomonitoring data were available from before and after the date of Prop 65 listing, we estimated the change in concentrations over time for Californians compared with non-Californians, using a difference-in-differences model. We used quantile regression to estimate changes in exposure over time, as well as differences between Californians and non-Californians at the 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles.
Results: We found that concentrations of biomonitored chemicals generally declined nationwide over time irrespective of their inclusion on the Prop 65 list. Median bisphenol A (BPA) concentrations decreased 15% after BPA's listing on Prop 65, whereas concentrations of the nonlisted but closely related bisphenol S (BPS) increased 20% over this same period, suggesting chemical substitution. Californians generally had lower levels of biomonitored chemicals than the rest of the US population.
Discussion: Our findings suggest that increased scientific and regulatory attention, as well as public awareness of the harms of Prop 65-listed chemicals, prompted changes in product formulations that reduced exposure to those chemicals nationwide. Trends in bisphenols and several phthalates suggest that manufacturers replaced some listed chemicals with closely related but unlisted chemicals, increasing exposure to the substitutes. Our findings have implications for the design of policies to reduce toxic exposures, biomonitoring programs to inform policy interventions, and future research into the regulatory and market forces that affect chemical exposure. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP13956.