A path forward in the debate over health impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals

Environmental Health

Commentary

Susan Jobling¹  Andreas Kortenkamp¹  Taisen Iguchi²  Georg Becher³  Niels E Skakkebaek⁴  Riana Bornman⁵  Åke Bergman⁶  R Thomas Zoeller⁷  Laura N Vandenberg⁷  Karen A Kidd⁸  Poul Bjerregaard⁹  Jorma Toppari^1,10  Ingvar Brandt^1,11 

[1] Brunel University, London, UK;National Institute for Basic Biology, Okazaki, Japan;Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway;Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark;School of Health Systems and Public Health, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa;Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox), Forskargatan 20, SE-151 36, Sodertalje, Sweden;University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA;University of New Brunswick, Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada;University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark;University of Turku, Turku, Finland;Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden;

关键词: Endocrine disruptor;    UNEP;    WHO;    State of the science;   

DOI  :  10.1186/1476-069X-13-118

 received in 2014-09-10, accepted in 2014-12-08,  发布年份 2014

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

Several recent publications reflect debate on the issue of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs), indicating that two seemingly mutually exclusive perspectives are being articulated separately and independently. Considering this, a group of scientists with expertise in basic science, medicine and risk assessment reviewed the various aspects of the debate to identify the most significant areas of dispute and to propose a path forward. We identified four areas of debate. The first is about the definitions for terms such as “endocrine disrupting chemical”, “adverse effects”, and “endocrine system”. The second is focused on elements of hormone action including “potency”, “endpoints”, “timing”, “dose” and “thresholds”. The third addresses the information needed to establish sufficient evidence of harm. Finally, the fourth focuses on the need to develop and the characteristics of transparent, systematic methods to review the EDC literature. Herein we identify areas of general consensus and propose resolutions for these four areas that would allow the field to move beyond the current and, in our opinion, ineffective debate.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© Zoeller et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2014