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

Åke Bergman; Anna-Maria Andersson; Georg Becher; Martin van den Berg; Bruce Blumberg; Poul Bjerregaard; Carl-Gustav Bornehag; Riana Bornman; Ingvar Brandt; Jayne V Brian; Stephanie C Casey; Paul A Fowler; Heloise Frouin; Linda C Giudice; Taisen Iguchi; Ulla  Hass; Susan Jobling; Anders Juul; Karen A Kidd; Andreas Kortenkamp; Monica Lind; Olwenn V Martin; Derek Muir; Roseline Ochieng; Nicholas Olea; Leif Norrgren; Erik Ropstad; Peter S Ross; Christina Rudén; Martin Scheringer; Niels Erik Skakkebæk; Olle Söder; Carlos  Sonnenschein; Ana Soto; Shanna Swan; Jorma Toppari; Charles R Tyler; Laura N Vandenberg; Anne Marie Vinggaard; Karin Wiberg; R Thomas Zoeller

doi:10.1186/1476-069X-12-69

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

Åke Bergman, Anna-Maria Andersson, Georg Becher, Martin van den Berg, Bruce Blumberg, Poul Bjerregaard, Carl-Gustav Bornehag, Riana Bornman, Ingvar Brandt, Jayne V Brian, Stephanie C Casey, Paul A Fowler, Heloise Frouin, Linda C Giudice, Taisen Iguchi, Ulla Hass, Susan Jobling, Anders Juul, Karen A Kidd, Andreas KortenkampMonica Lind, Olwenn V Martin, Derek Muir, Roseline Ochieng, Nicholas Olea, Leif Norrgren, Erik Ropstad, Peter S Ross, Christina Rudén, Martin Scheringer, Niels Erik Skakkebæk, Olle Söder, Carlos Sonnenschein, Ana Soto, Shanna Swan, Jorma Toppari, Charles R Tyler, Laura N Vandenberg, Anne Marie Vinggaard, Karin Wiberg, R Thomas Zoeller

Department of Biology

Research output: Contribution to journal › Journal article › Research › peer-review

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.

Original language	English
Article number	69
Journal	Environmental Health (Online Edition)
Volume	12
ISSN	1832-3367
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69
Publication status	Published - 2013

Keywords

Endocrine disrupting chemicals
Environment
Health
Precautionary principle
Regulatory toxicology
Endocrine Disruptors/toxicity
Humans
Environmental Exposure
Environmental Pollutants/toxicity
European Union
Government Regulation
Health Policy
Periodicals as Topic
Toxicology/standards

Documents & Links

10.1186/1476-069X-12-69

Cite this

Bergman, Å., Andersson, A-M., Becher, G., Berg, M. V. D., Blumberg, B., Bjerregaard, P., Bornehag, C-G., Bornman, R., Brandt, I., Brian, J. V., Casey, S. C., Fowler, P. A., Frouin, H., Giudice, L. C., Iguchi, T., Hass, U., Jobling, S., Juul, A., Kidd, K. A., ... Zoeller, R. T. (2013). Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors. Environmental Health (Online Edition), 12, [69]. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69

@article{b921c553c0cd48f5801a9098e3279e04,

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

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, Endocrine disrupting chemicals, Environment, Health, Precautionary principle, Regulatory toxicology, Endocrine Disruptors/toxicity, Humans, Environmental Exposure, Environmental Pollutants/toxicity, European Union, Government Regulation, Health Policy, Periodicals as Topic, Toxicology/standards",

author = "{\AA}ke Bergman and Anna-Maria Andersson and Georg Becher and Berg, {Martin van den} and Bruce Blumberg and Poul Bjerregaard and Carl-Gustav Bornehag and Riana Bornman and Ingvar Brandt and Brian, {Jayne V} and Casey, {Stephanie C} and Fowler, {Paul A} and Heloise Frouin and Giudice, {Linda C} and Taisen Iguchi and Ulla Hass and Susan Jobling and Anders Juul and Kidd, {Karen A} and Andreas Kortenkamp and Monica Lind and Martin, {Olwenn V} and Derek Muir and Roseline Ochieng and Nicholas Olea and Leif Norrgren and Erik Ropstad and Ross, {Peter S} and Christina Rud{\'e}n and Martin Scheringer and Skakkeb{\ae}k, {Niels Erik} and Olle S{\"o}der and Carlos Sonnenschein and Ana Soto and Shanna Swan and Jorma Toppari and Tyler, {Charles R} and Vandenberg, {Laura N} and Vinggaard, {Anne Marie} and Karin Wiberg and Zoeller, {R Thomas}",

year = "2013",

doi = "10.1186/1476-069X-12-69",

language = "English",

volume = "12",

journal = "Environmental Health (Online Edition)",

issn = "1832-3367",

}

Bergman, Å, Andersson, A-M, Becher, G, Berg, MVD, Blumberg, B, Bjerregaard, P, Bornehag, C-G, Bornman, R, Brandt, I, Brian, JV, Casey, SC, Fowler, PA, Frouin, H, Giudice, LC, Iguchi, T, Hass, U, Jobling, S, Juul, A, Kidd, KA, Kortenkamp, A, Lind, M, Martin, OV, Muir, D, Ochieng, R, Olea, N, Norrgren, L, Ropstad, E, Ross, PS, Rudén, C, Scheringer, M, Skakkebæk, NE, Söder, O, Sonnenschein, C, Soto, A, Swan, S, Toppari, J, Tyler, CR, Vandenberg, LN, Vinggaard, AM, Wiberg, K & Zoeller, RT 2013, 'Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors', Environmental Health (Online Edition), vol. 12, 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69

TY - JOUR

T1 - Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors

AU - Bergman, Åke

AU - Andersson, Anna-Maria

AU - Becher, Georg

AU - Berg, Martin van den

AU - Blumberg, Bruce

AU - Bjerregaard, Poul

AU - Bornehag, Carl-Gustav

AU - Bornman, Riana

AU - Brandt, Ingvar

AU - Brian, Jayne V

AU - Casey, Stephanie C

AU - Fowler, Paul A

AU - Frouin, Heloise

AU - Giudice, Linda C

AU - Iguchi, Taisen

AU - Hass, Ulla

AU - Jobling, Susan

AU - Juul, Anders

AU - Kidd, Karen A

AU - Kortenkamp, Andreas

AU - Lind, Monica

AU - Martin, Olwenn V

AU - Muir, Derek

AU - Ochieng, Roseline

AU - Olea, Nicholas

AU - Norrgren, Leif

AU - Ropstad, Erik

AU - Ross, Peter S

AU - Rudén, Christina

AU - Scheringer, Martin

AU - Skakkebæk, Niels Erik

AU - Söder, Olle

AU - Sonnenschein, Carlos

AU - Soto, Ana

AU - Swan, Shanna

AU - Toppari, Jorma

AU - Tyler, Charles R

AU - Vandenberg, Laura N

AU - Vinggaard, Anne Marie

AU - Wiberg, Karin

AU - Zoeller, R Thomas

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Endocrine disrupting chemicals, Environment, Health; Precautionary principle, Regulatory toxicology

KW - Endocrine disrupting chemicals

KW - Environment

KW - Health

KW - Precautionary principle

KW - Regulatory toxicology

KW - Endocrine Disruptors/toxicity

KW - Humans

KW - Environmental Exposure

KW - Environmental Pollutants/toxicity

KW - European Union

KW - Government Regulation

KW - Health Policy

KW - Periodicals as Topic

KW - Toxicology/standards

U2 - 10.1186/1476-069X-12-69

DO - 10.1186/1476-069X-12-69

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 23981490

VL - 12

JO - Environmental Health (Online Edition)

JF - Environmental Health (Online Edition)

SN - 1832-3367

M1 - 69

ER -