Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Nov;70(11):1051-1056. doi: 10.1136/jech-2016-207841. Epub 2016 Jul 13.

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

Author information

1
Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA Department of Environmental Medicine and Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA NYU Wagner School of Public Service, New York, New York, USA Department of Nutrition, Food & Public Health, NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York, New York, USA NYU Global Institute of Public Health, New York, New York, USA.
2
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.
3
Pediatric Endocrinology, CHU Liège and Neuroendocrinology Unit, GIGA Neurosciences, Universite de Liege, Liège, Belgium.
4
Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
5
Inserm, CNRS and Univ. Grenoble Alpes joint research center (IAB), Team of Environmental Epidemiology, Grenoble, France.
6
Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri, USA.
7
Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.

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.

KEYWORDS:

ENDOCRINOLOGY; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; Environmental epidemiology; TOXICOLOGY

PMID:
27417427
PMCID:
PMC5260845
DOI:
10.1136/jech-2016-207841
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for HighWire Icon for PubMed Central
Loading ...
Support Center