In an editorial published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Endocrinology on September 18, 2013, 106 journal Editors-in-Chief, journal associate editors and scientists from endocrine related fields respond to the July 5 (2013)-editorial by Dietrich and colleagues. Dietrich and colleagues had criticized the European Commission (EC) endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) policy as scientifically unfounded and over-precautionary, and supported the status quo in chemical regulations (reported on by the FPF). The present article by Gore and colleagues contests that current chemical regulation is effective in protecting human health, pointing to the large body of scientific evidence linking chronic diseases and EDCs. In contrast to Dietrich et al.’s assertions, the signatories contend that applying the non-threshold concept to EDCs is indeed ‘common sense’ and supported by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. In particular, Gore and colleagues point to sensitive time windows in which EDCs can cause significant perturbations in endocrine sensitive organs. As such they are in agreement with a prior rebuttal by prominent EDC scientists (previously reported on by the FPF) published August 27, 2013, which detailed that exposure to EDCs during development may cause significant adverse and irreversible effects (Bergman et al. 2013). According to Gore and colleagues, a European EDC policy including a non-threshold assumption for EDCs is based on a modern, evolved understanding of science rather than relying on assumptions derived from non-EDC research. To address EDCs as a global public health threat it is important that toxicologists, endocrinologists and other stakeholders work together, the authors conclude.
Bergman, A. et al. (2013). "Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors." Environmental Health 12(1): 69.
Dietrich et al. (2013). "Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission’s recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles." Toxicology Research 2(5): 297-298.