Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2015 Dec;73(3):1007-17. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.026. Epub 2015 Jul 31.

Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science--A rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012".

Author information

1
Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox), Södertälje, Sweden. Electronic address: ake.bergman@swetox.se.
2
Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
3
University of California, Irvine, USA.
4
University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
5
School of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
6
Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
7
Vancouver Aquarium Marine Science Center, Vancouver, Canada.
8
University of California, San Francisco, USA.
9
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, USA.
10
National Institute for Basic Biology, Okazaki, Japan.
11
Brunel University London, Uxbridge, UK.
12
University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada.
13
Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada.
14
Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya.
15
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Oslo, Norway.
16
Copenhagen University Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
17
University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
18
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, USA.

Abstract

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

KEYWORDS:

EDCs; Endocrine disruption; Endocrine disruptors

PMID:
26239693
DOI:
10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.026
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free full text

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center