Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors
Authors:
- Åke BergmanÅBÅke Bergman
- Anna-Maria AnderssonAAAnna-Maria Andersson
- Georg BecherGBGeorg Becher
- Martin van Den BergMBMartin van Den Berg
- Bruce BlumbergBBBruce Blumberg
- Poul BjerregaardPBPoul Bjerregaard
- Carl-Gustaf BornehagCBCarl-Gustaf Bornehag
- Riana BornmanRiana Bornman
- Ingvar BrandtIBIngvar Brandt
- Jayne V BrianJBJayne V Brian
- Stephanie C CaseySCStephanie C Casey
- Paul A FowlerPFPaul A Fowler
Open Access
- 27 August 2013
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by Springer Nature in Environmental Health
- Vol. 12 (1) , 1-4
Abstract
The “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission’s recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principlesChemico-Biological Interactions, 2013
- The Impact of Endocrine Disruption: A Consensus Statement on the State of the ScienceEnvironmental Health Perspectives, 2013
- Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: Scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environmentEFSA Journal, 2013
- Response to A critique of the European Commission Document, “State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters” by Rhomberg and colleagues – letter to the editorCritical Reviews in Toxicology, 2012
- IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for HumansCritical Reviews in Toxicology, 2008
- What is a Practical Threshold?Toxicologic Pathology, 2007
- Existence of No Hepatocarcinogenic Effect Levels of 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5- f ]quinoxaline with or without Coadministration with EthanolToxicologic Pathology, 2006
- Thresholds in Toxicology and Risk AssessmentInternational Journal of Toxicology, 1999