TY - JOUR

T1 - Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed

T2 - a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors

AU - Bergman, Åke

AU - Andersson, Anna-Maria

AU - Becher, Georg

AU - van den Berg, Martin

AU - Blumberg, Bruce

AU - Bjerregaard, Poul

AU - Bornehag, Carl-Gustaf

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, Nicolas

AU - Norrgren, Leif

AU - Ropstad, Erik

AU - Ross, Peter S

AU - Rudén, Christina

AU - Scheringer, Martin

AU - Skakkebaek, 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

N1 - Funding Information: The publication of the present commentary was financially supported by Stockholm University. Colleagues who wish to co-sign this Commentary and its pledge for science-based deliberations should send their name and affiliation by email to edc.comment2013@gmail. com. The names of co-signatories will be made available as a Comment to be updated during the first three months following publication of this Commentary.

PY - 2013/8/27

Y1 - 2013/8/27

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 - Chemistry

KW - Endocrine Disruptors

KW - Environmental Exposure

KW - Environmental Pollutants

KW - European Union

KW - Government Regulation

KW - Health Policy

KW - Humans

KW - Periodicals as Topic

KW - Toxicology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84883581681&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/042e5afe-e00c-3e37-8d9c-4999f8df3837/

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

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

M3 - Comments / Debate / Reports

C2 - 23981490

VL - 12

JO - Environmental health : a global access science source

JF - Environmental health : a global access science source

SN - 1476-069X

IS - 1

M1 - 69

ER -