Back to Search Start Over

Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science - A rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report 'State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012'

Authors :
Susan Jobling
Poul Bjerregaard
Niels E. Skakkebæk
Karen A. Kidd
Taisen Iguchi
Erik Ropstad
R. Thomas Zoeller
Jorma Toppari
Georg Becher
Riana Bornman
Stephanie C. Casey
Ingvar Brandt
Linda C. Giudice
Andreas Kortenkamp
Jerrold J. Heindel
Åke Bergman
Bruce Blumberg
Laura N. Vandenberg
Roseline Ochieng
Tracey J. Woodruff
P. Monica Lind
Heloise Frouin
Peter S. Ross
Derek C. G. Muir
Source :
Bergman, Å, Becher, G, Blumberg, B, Bjerregaard, P, Bornman, R, Brandt, I, Casey, S C, Frouin, H, Giudice, L C, Heindel, J J, Iguchi, T, Jobling, S, Kidd, K A, Kortenkamp, A, Lind, P M, Muir, D, Ochieng, R, Ropstad, E, Ross, P S, Skakkebæk, N E, Toppari, J, Vandenberg, L N, Woodruff, T J & Zoeller, R T 2015, ' Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science : A rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" ', Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 1007-1017 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.026, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, vol 73, iss 3, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, vol 73, iss 3, Bergman, Å; Becher, G; Blumberg, B; Bjerregaard, P; Bornman, R; Brandt, I; et al.(2015). Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science-A rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 73(3), 1007-1017. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.026. UC Irvine: Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6zj2b0d3, Bergman, Å; Becher, G; Blumberg, B; Bjerregaard, P; Bornman, R; Brandt, I; et al.(2015). Manufacturing doubt about endocrine disrupter science-A rebuttal of industry-sponsored critical comments on the UNEP/WHO report "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012". Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.026. UC Irvine: Retrieved from: http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/4tc7q75n
Publication Year :
2015

Abstract

© 2015 The Authors. We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

Details

ISSN :
10960295
Volume :
73
Issue :
3
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....79d1d37f3a4c89546de372c0c141b733
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.026