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

Trasande, Leonardo (author): New York University School of Medicine, New York, USA; NYU Wagner School of Public Service, New York, USA; NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York, USA; NYU Global Institute of Public Health, New York, USA

Vandenberg, Laura N. (author): Department of Environmental Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

Myers, John Peterson (author): Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, USA

Slama, Remy (author): CNRS, INSERM, Grenoble, France; University Grenoble Alpes, Grenoble, France

Vom Saal, Frederick (author): Division of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, USA

Zoeller, R. Thomas, 1952- (author): Department of Biology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

(creator_code:org_t)

2016-07-13
2016
English.
In: Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. - : BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. - 0143-005X .- 1470-2738. ; 70:11, s. 1051-1056

Related links:: https://europepmc.or...; show more...; https://urn.kb.se/re...; https://doi.org/10.1...; show less...

Abstract Subject headings

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.

By the author/editor: Trasande, Leonar ...; Vandenberg, Laur ...; Bourguignon, Jea ...; Myers, John Pete ...; Slama, Remy; Vom Saal, Freder ...; show more...; Zoeller, R. Thom ...; show less...

About the subject

NATURAL SCIENCES: NATURAL SCIENCES; and Earth and Relate ...; and Environmental Sc ...

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.