Suchergebnisse

From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8–9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

International audience ; From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8-9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

Summary: From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8–9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8-9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

From the lectures presented at the 2nd International Workshop on Obesity and Environmental Contaminants, which was held in Uppsala, Sweden, on 8-9 October 2015, it became evident that the findings from numerous animal and epidemiological studies are consistent with the hypothesis that environmental contaminants could contribute to the global obesity epidemic. To increase awareness of this important issue among scientists, regulatory agencies, politicians, chemical industry management, and the general public, the authors summarize compelling scientific evidence that supports the hypothesis and discuss actions that could restrict the possible harmful effects of environmental contaminants on obesity.

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the BradfordeHill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/ WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity. ; http://www.elsevier.com/locate/yrtph ; hb2015

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.

The authors of the above paper would like to make readers aware that two authors inadvertently failed to cite support from a key grant that supported a part of the research presented in this Review. Bruce Blumberg and Vesna Munic Kos would like to add the following funding source to their list of funders. The correct wording, as it should have appeared, is below: "This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement GOLIATH No. 825489." The authors apologise for this omission.