Abstract
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.
Highlights
Several recent publications have reflected intense debate concerning the potential health effects of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs)
A group of toxicology journal editors [7] wrote an open letter to the science advisor to the European Commission concluding that the Commission was proposing an approach that lacks “adequate scientific evidence” [8]; this letter was criticized by a number of scientists in two separate responses [9,10]
Because the critical analysis of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP)/World Health Organization (WHO) report [11] by Lamb et al [12] is the longest and most detailed, and because it covers the same issues expressed in other critical reviews, we use this as the focus of our current analysis
Summary
Several recent publications have reflected intense debate concerning the potential health effects of “endocrine disrupting chemicals” (EDCs). Guideline endpoints do not map explicitly to a specific human disease or dysfunction [15] They do not cover the entirety of the diseases that can be affected by EDCs; for example, there is no guideline assay to assess whether a substance alters the response of an organism to a hormonal or carcinogenic challenge, a high fat diet, stress, or other environmental factors. Because testicular cancer is of fetal origin but does not appear until after puberty, there is concern that endocrine dysfunction or disruption during fetal development can lead to a delayed adverse effect [44] It is becoming clear from animal studies that many complex non-communicable diseases typically experienced in adulthood (cancers, metabolic syndrome, infertility, etc.) have their origins during development that can be produced by a variety of environmental stressors including EDCs [45]. In light of the absence of systematic review guidelines and the impossibility of using them for such a large undertaking, state of the science reviews are likely to always require the expertise of scientists working in the field and narrative reviews
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
