On September 22, 2013 the online news publication Health & Environment published an article summarizing questions posed by two rebuttals to a recent controversial editorial by Dietrich and colleagues (2013, reported on by the FPF). The article highlights that Dietrich et al. do not cite the document in their editorial which led them to conclude that the European Commission (EC) plans to establish an a priori non-threshold assumption for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Amongst other questions listed in the article, Dietrich and his co-authors are asked to justify their choice of defining hormones only based on their role in homeostasis, thus excluding hormone’s programming function. Further, Health & Environment points out that significant evidence has linked EDCs to a variety of adverse effects, thereby asking Dietrich et al. to clarify when they would consider precautionary legal action justified. The questions listed in the article are extracted from the commentary by Bergman et al. and the Gore et al. editorial previously reported on by the FPF (both 2013).

Read more

Health & Environment (September 22, 2013). “Eight questions for toxicologists against proposals for new EU chemicals laws.”

FPF article “EDC journal editors call upon scientists to cooperate in EDC research and policy

FPF article “Opinion: New EDC policy in Europe is scientifically justified

FPF article “Opinion: Scientists call European Commission’s proposed EDC regulation over-precautionary