4.7 Article

Biomonitoring Studies Should Be Used by Regulatory Agencies to Assess Human Exposure Levels and Safety of Bisphenol A

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES
卷 118, 期 8, 页码 1051-1054

出版社

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0901717

关键词

bisphenol A; endocrine disruptor; Good Laboratory Practices; human exposure; regulatory policy; risk assessment; toxicokinetic model

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [1F32GM087107-01, R01 ES016541, R01 ES017005]
  2. National Research Council-Brazil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Within the past 3 years, four major evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA) safety have been undertaken. However, these assessments have arrived at quite different conclusions regarding the safety of BPA at current human exposure levels. OBJECTIVES: We compared the reasons provided by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) BPA risk assessment panel for their conclusion that human exposures are negligible with the conclusions reached by the other panels, with all panels having the same body of literature at their disposal. DISCUSSION: The EFSA panel dismissed >= 80 biomonitoring studies that documented significant levels of BPA exposure in humans, including internal exposures to unconjugated BPA, on the basis that they did not match a model of BPA metabolism. Instead, the EFSA panel relied on two toxicokinetic studies-conducted in 15 adults administered BPA-to draw conclusions about exposure levels in the population, including exposures of neonates. CONCLUSIONS: As with all exposure assessments, models should be developed to explain actual data that are collected. In the case of BPA, samples from a large number of human subjects clearly indicate that humans are internally exposed to unconjugated BPA. The dismissal of these biomonitoring studies simply because their results do not conform to a model violates scientific principles. Expert panels should evaluate all data-including human biomonitoring studies-to make informed risk assessments.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据