UC Berkeley

This dissertation investigates efforts in the United States to regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 1n 1996, Congress mandated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to establish a screening program for chemicals that appeared to interfere with the actions of estrogens, androgens and thyroid hormones; no chemicals have yet proceeded through the full complement of assays, and many details of the program remain unresolved. Moreover, much is still unknown about endocrine-disrupting chemicals, complicating the tasks of assessing and regulating them; for example, there is significant scientific support for the notion that they can exert effects at very low-doses, but industry disputes such findings. Without an effective Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP), human and wildlife population continue to be exposed to possible endocrine-disruptors, with long-term consequences that remain unclear.

This dissertation examines how industry stakeholders, non-governmental organizations and others have framed the scientific issues and sought to influence regulators, consumers and other audiences, through public comment, ex parte meetings and media coverage. It examines: 1) public comments from stakeholders in response to the first draft list of chemicals for the EDSP; 2) private meetings between industry representatives and the EPA about key aspects of the EDSP; and 3) news coverage of phthalates, and in particular advocacy efforts to raise awareness about their presence in brand-name consumer goods.

The results of this investigation suggest that while industry stakeholders might not appear to have significant impact on the content of rules, the regulatory process has nonetheless provided them with multiple opportunities to delay the process of EDSP development. The results also suggest that environmental and public health advocates can find different strategies for effecting policy change, with the news media playing a key role. In particular, offering new forms of evidence and altering public perceptions about the potential hazards of everyday consumer products can exert pressure on corporations to change behaviors and reformulate products, and on politicians to take legislative action against particularly worrisome chemicals. The trade-off is that the benefits might be far narrower in scope--as in this particular case, limited to phthalates in toys and personal care products--than the protections envisioned as part of an overarching structure like the EDSP.