On November 29, an op-ed article, co-signed by 94 scientists, and entitled “Let’s Stop the Manipulation of Science” was published in Le Monde. It makes numerous allegations, most prominent among them that industry is “manufacturing doubt” about the science on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). But as anyone who has followed the issue of endocrine disruptors knows, it is highly controversial and polarized with serious questions
In 1991, Theo Colborn convened a group of international scientists to discuss concerns about the trans-generational effects of persistent chemicals on predator species in the Great Lakes. Their report, and a subsequent book authored by Colborn and her colleagues entitled Our Stolen Future, Are We Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence and Survival?, proposed that many chemicals which display an ability to interact or interfere with the human endocrine system have the ability to elicit adverse health effects at doses far lower than the toxicities caused through other modes of action and required special regulation.
Several weeks ago, I wrote about the European Commission’s (EC) proposed scientific criteria to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals and highlighted what I, along with many others, believe are its numerous shortcomings.
On June 15 the EU Commission (EC) issued its highly anticipated “scientific criteria” for identifying Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs). Now that the dust has settled, and stakeholders around the globe have had a chance to offer their thoughts, the time is ripe to explore to the heart of the criteria – what the EC selected (and what it didn’t select), and the potential impact their choices will have on consumers, industry and the global regulatory arena.
Last week the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) released a consensus statement on criteria for identifying endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) that could input to the European Commission’s mandate to develop and implement criteria for EDC identification as requ