Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than ‘sound science’, should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals

Abstract

Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. Despite a United Nations Environment Programme/WHO report affirmed by over 100 countries at the Fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management, ‘manufactured doubt’ continues to be cast as a cloud over rigorous, peer-reviewed and independently funded scientific data. This study describes the sources of doubt and their social costs, and suggested courses of action by policymakers to prevent disease and disability. The problem is largely based on the available data, which are all too limited. Rigorous testing programmes should not simply focus on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid. Tests should have proper statistical power. ‘Good laboratory practice’ (GLP) hardly represents a proper or even gold standard for laboratory studies of endocrine disruption. Studies should be evaluated with regard to the contamination of negative controls, responsiveness to positive controls and dissection techniques. Flaws in many GLP studies have been identified, yet regulatory agencies rely on these flawed studies. Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than ‘sound science’, should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in Human Fetal Growth

“…This was seen in other areas of EDC studies. We agree with Trasande et al when they write "clearly, there are still many aspects of endocrine disruptor science that are unsettled, but these are generally related to the mechanisms themselves" [78]. In other words, bearing in mind the complexity of a study that wants to demonstrate a more precise relationship of cause-effect between EDCs and fetal development, further research and new scientific approaches are needed.…”

Chemicals Denial—A Challenge to Science and Policy

“…No substantive remarks are made in the letter though. The opposite is the case in an essay by Trasande et al who claim that the criticism of the UNEP-WHO report 'included many scientifically inaccurate comments', that the report was agreed to by over 100 countries, and that there were mainly four industry organizations who registered disagreement [48]. Trasande and colleagues also object to the phrase 'sound science', which they consider industry-coined (they refer to Michaels op.…”

Dismissing manufactured uncertainties, limitations and competing interpretations about chemical exposures and diabetes

“…Much of the doubt surrounding the effects of endocrine disruptors raised by the industry consultant and his colleague has been documented in this journal and others to be ‘manufactured’ 10 11. In contrast, independent scientific entities, including the International Programme on Chemical Safety,12 Endocrine Society,13 14 the WHO and United Nations Environment Program15 and the International Federation of Gynecologists and Obstetricians,16 have reviewed studies demonstrating the relationship between EDC exposures and endocrine diseases in controlled animal studies and human populations, and called for the reduction in prenatal EDC exposures to prevent a broad array of problems across the life course.…”