Viewpoint pubs.acs.org/est Translating the Materials Genome Into Safer Consumer Products Oladele A. Ogunseitan, †,‡, * Jaime M. Allgood, †,‡ Stephanie C. Hammel, † and Julie M. Schoenung § Department of Population Health & Disease Prevention, Program in Public University of California, Irvine, California 92697-3957, United States School of Social Ecology, University of California, Irvine, California 92697, United States Department of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science, University of California, Davis, California 95616, United States perspective is missing in its research foci: sustainable materials intended for use in mass-marketed products must not threaten environmental quality and human health through their production, use or disposal. It is impossible to ignore the environmental pollution legacy of new materials that have revolutionized societal needs, including the accumulation of toxic waste from electronics products and plastics, which with and without phthalates, bisphenol A, or brominated flame-retardants, represented a remarkable commercial application of materials science and manufacturing, but now threaten to be the most highly contested products in legislation and environmental protection. Traditionally, the cost-benefit trade-offs inherent in selecting materials have not been transparent, leading to regrettable outcomes and policy reversals. This is because of incompatible metrics and weights that apply to different priorities such as energy conservation, economics, disease burden, and wildlife protection. To some extent, life cycle assessments (LCAs) can address trade-offs, but there are serious gaps in databases on which LCAs rely. For example, the poster on MGI features a fluorescent light bulb presumably to represent innovation in advanced materials for energy conservation. However, recent ive years after legislation to establish the Green Chemistry studies suggest that without developing appropriate waste Initiative (GCI), the landmark California Safer Consumer management methods for bulbs, the savings in energy may not Products Law became effective on October 1st, 2013. We justify their potential detrimental impacts. 4 argue here that the development of new regulatory policies to The existing federal law to reduce exposure to chemicals used stimulate the convergence of materials development research in commerce, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, is widely and public health and environmental impact assessments considered a failure. Since its implementation, the U.S. EPA has provides evidence that these topics have traditionally addressed restricted only five chemicals. Recent efforts in the U.S. separate audiences, developed different values and measure- congress to reconfigure ToSCA have stalled through opposition ment systems, and focused on incompatible goals. The United from the chemical industry. These efforts include the “Safe State’s Materials Genome Initiative (MGI) provides an Chemicals Act of 2013” introduced in April 2013 by Senators opportunity to use lessons learned from the California Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) that experience to reduce the temporal and scientific gaps that would require “safe-before-sell” evidence from manufacturers challenge initiatives to prevent disease and environmental and a version introduced on May 22, 2013 as the “Chemical pollution resulting from toxic chemicals in consumer products. Safety Improvement Act of 2013” by Senators Lautenberg and The MGI aims to more rapidly meet societal needs in clean David Viter (R-LA) to gain bipartisan support. 5 energy, national security, and human welfare by developing The acceleration of materials discovery under MGI should be materials that are “at the heart of innovation, economic accompanied by increased support for other research disciplines opportunities, and global competitiveness”. 2 The MGI calls for that curb human and environmental exposures to dangerous accelerating the pace of research in computational and chemicals will lead to costly and/or regrettable applications. experimental tools, collaborative networks, and digital data The MGI “challenges researchers, policy makers, and business processingall represent a boost for the fledgling discipline of leaders to reduce the time and resources needed to bring new materials informatics. Two years after MGI started, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, DoE, and the White House’s Office of Science called the first “Materials Received: September 13, 2013 Revised: October 6, 2013 Genome Initiative Grand Challenges Summit” (June 25−26, Accepted: October 11, 2013 2013). The agenda focused on five traditional materials science Published: October 30, 2013 themes. 3 The articulated MGI goals are laudable, but a crucial F © 2013 American Chemical Society dx.doi.org/10.1021/es4040864 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 12625−12627