4.4 Article

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

Journal

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 69, Issue 1, Pages 22-40

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.02.002

Keywords

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

Ask authors/readers for more resources

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 stateof-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. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available