Frames in the Toxicity Controversy

Mankind first started to develop and produce considerable quantities of chemical substances at the time of the industrial revolution in the 19th century. In most cases, these were chemicals that had not developed in nature during the earth’s evolutionary process. Up to 1900, the potential environmental problems associated with this development did not require much attention. The number and volume of man-made chemicals was still relatively small. Especially since the 1920s, however, there has been major growth in the petrochemical industry, growth which actually intensified after the Second World War.

Science can only play a role in solving controversies if scientific knowledge claims are accepted by those in the decision making process. Such claims should therefore be authoritative. If such claims are merely statements by a group of people calling themselves’ scientists’ they don’t differ from those of other groups: laymen, politicians, etc. Thus, the extent to which science can play a legitimate role in structuring decision making depends on the status one attributes to scientific knowledge.

In chapter 2, I indicated that problems plagued by conflicting frames and great uncertainty about (scientific) facts can be defined as ‘messy’. Such problems are hard to structure in decision making. Nevertheless, we have to be able to cope with ‘messy’ problems in practice. In order to grasp how this can be done, two case studies of ‘messy’ problems will be studied in this book: the chlorine debate and the PVC debate.

The first example of a ‘messy’ controversy in this book is the (Dutch) chlorine debate. In this debate, the stakes are high and the information about the benefits and problems associated with chlorine is complex. Against this background, in the early nineties a number of Western governments started comprehensive studies with the aim of evaluating all or large parts of the chlorine chain (e.g. Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands; see Ecotec, 1991; Alwast et al., 1993; Plinke et al., 1994; Enquete-Kommission, 1994; Keml 1995a; Tukker et al., 1995b). The Dutch study, as a very detailed one, is particularly interesting from the perspective of what the structured generation of knowledge has yielded in terms of (scientifically) robust information1. Before dwelling upon this question I will briefly review the role of chlorine in the Western economy and the concerns about chlorine’s environmental problems.

The second example of a ‘messy’ controversy in this book is the (Swedish) debate on Polyvinylchloride (PVC). This case followed more or less the same pattern as the Dutch chlorine debate: one of the actors involved tried to create the possibility of structuring the controversy by commissioning a comprehensive study into the environmental problems related to PVC. Once again, this made it possible to investigate what the structured generation of knowledge has yielded in terms of (scientifically) robust information. Before discussing this question, we will first describe PVC’s role in society and the concerns about its environmental problems².

As already indicated in chapter 4, during the last decade the production and use of chlorine has been a point of attention for environmental groups and governmental institutions all over the world. Major debates and research programmes concerned with chlorine took place in Sweden (KemI, 1995), Germany (Ecotec, 1991; Plinke et al., 1994) and the US and Canada. In the latter countries, a very influential research programme was conducted within the framework of the International Joint Commission (IJC, 1993a and 1993b). In its Sixth Biennial report (IJC, 1992) the IJC even came to the conclusion that “the use of chlorine and its compounds should be avoided in the manufacturing process.”

Polyvinylchloride (PVC) is one of the most important plastics in today’s economy. As indicated in chapter 5, its life cycle can be divided into five main parts - the material production stage, the manufacturing of PVC products, the manufacturing of end products with PVC, use and waste management. The material PVC is produced by means of the polymerization of the monomer of vinylchloride (VCM). VCM is made by cracking ethylenedichloride (EDC), which is itself the result of a reaction of ethene with chlorine (direct chlorination) or HC1 (oxychlorination). Chlorine is produced in a single process that also yields caustic soda through electrolysis of a salt solution. In the manufacturing stage, tailor-made formulations of PVC resin and additives are applied in processes like extrusion and calendering to make specific PVC products. In PVC, stabilisers like lead salts, organotin and calcium/zinc or barium/zinc slats are used in proportions of from 1 to 4 Furthermore, flexible PVC grades may need a fraction, normally 20 to 30 %, of plasticisers, mainly phthalates such as DEHP. Finally, pigments and other substances are used, but not in larger quantities than in other plastics. Waste management options for PVC are recycling, incineration and landfill.

The focus of this book was the question of how decision making in the toxicity debate, particularly with respect to PVC and chlorine, can be structured. The current situation in this debate can be characterized as an intractable policy controversy surrounding a ‘messy’ or ‘ill-structured’ problem. This situation is highly undesirable. The use of man-made chemicals is one of the pillars on which the material welfare of modern society rests, and an extensive, costly infrastructure of production facilities, knowledge development and services has been built around it. Society should at least try to make a relatively stable judgement about the long-term desirability of this infrastructure. In chapter 2, I elaborated this general problem into a number of research questions:

This aim of this chapter is to develop a vision of how the toxicity debate, and the chlorine and PVC debates in particular, can be taken a step further. This implies more than simply giving recommendations. In this chapter I will reflect on my conclusions, give an in-depth analysis of their consequences, and in this way, possibly provide a view of how to deal with the frame conflict concerning toxicity. This chapter therefore covers the following five topics: