Email updates

Keep up to date with the latest news and content from Environmental Health and BioMed Central.

Open Access Highly Accessed Commentary

Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors

Åke Bergman1*, Anna-Maria Andersson2, Georg Becher3, Martin van den Berg4, Bruce Blumberg5, Poul Bjerregaard6, Carl-Gustaf Bornehag7, Riana Bornman8, Ingvar Brandt9, Jayne V Brian10, Stephanie C Casey5, Paul A Fowler11, Heloise Frouin12, Linda C Giudice13, Taisen Iguchi14, Ulla Hass15, Susan Jobling10, Anders Juul2, Karen A Kidd16, Andreas Kortenkamp10, Monica Lind9, Olwenn V Martin10, Derek Muir17, Roseline Ochieng18, Nicolas Olea19, Leif Norrgren20, Erik Ropstad21, Peter S Ross12, Christina Rudén22, Martin Scheringer23, Niels Erik Skakkebaek2, Olle Söder24, Carlos Sonnenschein25, Ana Soto25, Shanna Swan26, Jorma Toppari27, Charles R Tyler28, Laura N Vandenberg29, Anne Marie Vinggaard15, Karin Wiberg20 and R Thomas Zoeller30

Author Affiliations

1 Department of Materials and Environmental Chemistry, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden

2 Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

3 Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway

4 Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

5 University of California, Irvine, USA

6 University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

7 Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden

8 Pretoria Academic Hospital, Pretoria, South Africa

9 Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

10 Brunel University, London, UK

11 University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

12 Institute of Ocean Sciences, Fisheries and Oceans, Sidney, BC, Canada

13 University of California, San Francisco, USA

14 National Institute for Basic Biology, Okazaki, Japan

15 Danish Technical University, Copenhagen, Denmark

16 University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, Canada

17 Environment Canada, Burlington, Canada

18 Aga Khan University Hospital, Nairobi, Kenya

19 Granada University, Granada, Spain

20 Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden

21 Norwegian School of Veterinary Science, Oslo, Norway

22 Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

23 ETH Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

24 Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden

25 Tufts University, Boston, USA

26 School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, USA

27 University of Turku, Turku, Finland

28 Exeter University, Exeter, UK

29 Tufts University, Medford, USA

30 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA

For all author emails, please log on.

Environmental Health 2013, 12:69  doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-69


Please see related Editorial: http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/70/abstract

Published: 27 August 2013

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:
Endocrine disrupting chemicals; Environment; Health; Precautionary principle; Regulatory toxicology