Lamarck Revisited: The Implications of Epigenetics for Environmental Law

Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law Volume 7 | Issue 1 2017 Lamarck Revisited: The Implications of Epigenetics for Environmental Law Michael P. Vandenbergh Vanderbilt University Law School David J. Vandenbergh Pennsylvania State University John G. Vandenbergh North Carolina State University Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael P. Vandenbergh, David J. Vandenbergh & John G. Vandenbergh, Lamarck Revisited: The Implications of Epigenetics for Environmental Law, 7 Mich. J. Envtl. & Admin. L. 1 (2017). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjeal/vol7/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact . \\jciprod01\productn\M\MEA\7-1\MEA101.txt unknown Seq: 1 27-MAR-18 15:50 Lamarck Revisited: The Implications of Epigenetics for Environmental Law Michael P. Vandenbergh*, David J. Vandenbergh** & John G. Vandenbergh*** ABSTRACT For generations, a bedrock concept of biology was that genetic mutations are necessary to pass traits from one generation to the next, but new developments in genetics are challenging this fundamental assumption. A growing body of scientific evidence demonstrates that chemical alteration of the way a gene functions, whether through exposure to chemicals, foods or even traumatic experiences, may not only affect the exposed individual, but also the individual’s offspring for two generations or more. This interaction between genes and the environment, known as epigenetics, has revolutionized the understanding of how genes are expressed within an individual and how they affect that individual’s offspring. Epigenetics also presents novel challenges for chemical regulatory regimes in the United States and around the world. Chemical substances that do not cause mutations typically are not regulated based on their potential effects on future generations. They may be regulated based on their harms to living individuals, or perhaps to those exposed before birth, but until recently future generations were not thought to be at risk. We explore the implications of the new field of epigenetics for public and private regulation of toxics, and we suggest new legal strategies to reflect the new scientific understanding. We argue that new developments in public and private governance suggest optimism for the ability of the environmental regulatory regime to respond to new findings in the science of epigenetics. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Addition to Standard Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. The Development of Epigenetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The Epigenetics of Chemical Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Shifting the Focus of Toxics Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 5 7 8 * David Daniels Allen Distinguished Chair of Law, Director, Climate Change Research Network, and Co-Director, Energy, Environment and Land Use Program, Vanderbilt University Law School. We thank Ellen Clayton, Owen Jones, Carol Kwiatkowski, Heather Patisaul, Ronald Sederoff, William Rawson, and David Sweatt for valuable comments. Madison Renner and Margaret Fowler provided excellent research assistance. ** Professor of Biobehavioral Health; The Penn State Institute for the Neurosciences, & Molecular Cellular & Integrative Bioscience Graduate Program, The Huck Institutes for the Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University. *** Emeritus Professor of Zoology, North Carolina State University. 1 R R R R R \\jciprod01\productn\M\MEA\7-1\MEA101.txt 2 unknown Seq: 2 Michigan Journal of Environmental & Administrative Law 27-MAR-18 15:50 [Vol. 7:1 II. THE EMERGENCE OF EPIGENETICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. The Standard Genetic Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Epigenetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. The New Mechanism: Methylation of DNA as an Epigenetic Mark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D. Other Mechanisms of Epigenetic Effects? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Siblings, Stress, and Diet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Chemical Exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. IMPLICATIONS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY . . . . . . . . . . . A. Public Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Lautenberg Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Implementation of the Lautenberg Act . . . . . . . . . . . B. Private Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. The Emergence of Private Environmental Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Private Toxics Standards and Enforcement . . . . . . . . 3. Private Chemical Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. Effects of Private Governance on Public Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. BEYOND THE PUBLIC-PRIVATE TOXICS REGULATORY REGIME . . . . . . A. Analytical Tools for Rational Risk Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. Toxic Tort Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. Other Fields . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11 13 R 13 15 16 17 21 25 25 26 28 29 33 R 34 35 38 R 40 43 44 47 48 48 R I. INTRODUCTION Finland is remarkable not only for its cold temperatures, but also for its precise records of family histories that extend back for centuries. Aware of these records, Finnish geneticist Virpi Lummaa and her research team studied the Finnish Lutheran Church’s family histories, which included data on over 700 twins born during the period from 1734 to 1888.1 The conclusion was remarkable: a female with a male twin was far less likely to have children than was a female with a female twin or a male with a male twin.2 Additionally, if the female twin did have children, her children were less likely to have children than those not descended from females with an op1. Virpi Lummaa et al., Male (...truncated)