Literature DB >> 24530840

Critical comments on the WHO-UNEP State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - 2012.

James C Lamb1, Paolo Boffetta2, Warren G Foster3, Julie E Goodman4, Karyn L Hentz5, Lorenz R Rhomberg6, Jane Staveley7, Gerard Swaen8, Glen Van Der Kraak9, Amy L Williams10.   

Abstract

Early in 2013, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a 2012 update to the 2002 State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. Several significant concerns have been identified that raise questions about conclusions reached in this report regarding endocrine disruption. First, the report is not a state-of-the-science review and does not follow the 2002 WHO recommended weight-of-evidence approach. Second, endocrine disruption is often presumed to occur based on exposure or a potential mechanism despite a lack of evidence to show that chemicals are causally established as endocrine disruptors. Additionally, causation is often inferred by the presentation of a series of unrelated facts, which collectively do not demonstrate causation. Third, trends in disease incidence or prevalence are discussed without regard to known causes or risk factors; endocrine disruption is implicated as the reason for such trends in the absence of evidence. Fourth, dose and potency are ignored for most chemicals discussed. Finally, controversial topics (i.e., low dose effects, non-monotonic dose response) are presented in a one-sided manner and these topics are important to understanding endocrine disruption. Overall, the 2012 report does not provide a balanced perspective, nor does it accurately reflect the state of the science on endocrine disruption.
Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Causation; Disease trends; Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs); Low-dose effects; Non-monotonic dose response (NMDR); State of the science; Weight of evidence

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24530840     DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.02.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Regul Toxicol Pharmacol        ISSN: 0273-2300            Impact factor:   3.271


  17 in total

Review 1.  Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Leonardo Trasande; Laura N Vandenberg; Jean-Pierre Bourguignon; John Peterson Myers; Remy Slama; Frederick Vom Saal; Robert Thomas Zoeller
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 2.  Metabolism disrupting chemicals and metabolic disorders.

Authors:  Jerrold J Heindel; Bruce Blumberg; Mathew Cave; Ronit Machtinger; Alberto Mantovani; Michelle A Mendez; Angel Nadal; Paola Palanza; Giancarlo Panzica; Robert Sargis; Laura N Vandenberg; Frederick Vom Saal
Journal:  Reprod Toxicol       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.143

Review 3.  Methodological issues in human studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Duk-Hee Lee; David R Jacobs
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 6.514

Review 4.  EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals.

Authors:  A C Gore; V A Chappell; S E Fenton; J A Flaws; A Nadal; G S Prins; J Toppari; R T Zoeller
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 19.871

Review 5.  Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  Anna Beronius; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Rev Endocr Metab Disord       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 6.514

6.  Reprogramming of the Epigenome by MLL1 Links Early-Life Environmental Exposures to Prostate Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Quan Wang; Lindsey S Trevino; Rebecca Lee Yean Wong; Mario Medvedovic; Jing Chen; Shuk-Mei Ho; Jianjun Shen; Charles E Foulds; Cristian Coarfa; Bert W O'Malley; Ali Shilatifard; Cheryl L Walker
Journal:  Mol Endocrinol       Date:  2016-05-24

7.  Toxicology: a discipline in need of academic anchoring--the point of view of the German Society of Toxicology.

Authors:  U Gundert-Remy; H Barth; A Bürkle; G H Degen; R Landsiedel
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 5.153

8.  A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Authors:  R Thomas Zoeller; Åke Bergman; Georg Becher; Poul Bjerregaard; Riana Bornman; Ingvar Brandt; Taisen Iguchi; Susan Jobling; Karen A Kidd; Andreas Kortenkamp; Niels E Skakkebaek; Jorma Toppari; Laura N Vandenberg
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2014-12-22       Impact factor: 5.984

9.  Association between Low House Cleaning Frequency, Cough and Risk of Miscarriage: A Case Control Study in China.

Authors:  Fumei Gao; Xiangrui Meng; Qiuxiang Zhang; Min Fu; Yumeng Ren; Jianying Hu; Huan Shen; Kun Tang
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-17       Impact factor: 3.390

Review 10.  Bisphenol-A: epigenetic reprogramming and effects on reproduction and behavior.

Authors:  Guergana Mileva; Stephanie L Baker; Anne T M Konkle; Catherine Bielajew
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2014-07-22       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.