Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Manufactured doubt describes the efforts used by organizations or individuals to obscure the harmful effects of their products or actions by manipulating science. Although approaches to do so are widely used, relevant stakeholders are often unaware of these tactics. Here, we examine the strategies used in five cases of manufactured doubt: tobacco and adverse health; coal and black lung; Syngenta and the herbicide atrazine; the sugar industry and cardiovascular disease; and the Marshall Institute and climate change. By describing the tactics used in these cases, effective methods for identifying and countering instances of manufactured doubt can be generated.

Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) substantially cost society as a result of increases in disease and disability but—unlike other toxicant classes such as carcinogens—have yet to be codified into regulations as a hazard category. This Series paper examines economic, regulatory, and policy approaches to limit human EDC exposures and describes potential improvements. In the EU, general principles for EDCs call for minimisation of human exposure, identification as substances of very high concern, and ban on use in pesticides. In the USA, screening and testing programmes are focused on oestrogenic EDCs exclusively, and regulation is strictly risk-based. Minimisation of human exposure is unlikely without a clear overarching definition for EDCs and relevant pre-marketing test requirements. We call for a multifaceted international programme (eg, modelled on the International Agency for Research in Cancer) to address the effects of EDCs on human health—an approach that would proactively identify hazards for subsequent regulation.

In 1991, a group of 21 scientists gathered at the Wingspread Conference Center to discuss evidence of developmental alterations observed in wildlife populations after chemical exposures. There, the term "endocrine disruptor" was agreed upon to describe a class of chemicals including those that act as agonists and antagonists of the estrogen receptors (ERs), androgen receptor, thyroid hormone receptor, and others. This definition has since evolved, and the field has grown to encompass hundreds of chemicals. Despite significant advances in the study of endocrine disruptors, several controversies have sprung up and continue, including the debate over the existence of nonmonotonic dose response curves, the mechanisms of low-dose effects, and the importance of considering critical periods of exposure in experimental design. One chemical found ubiquitously in our environment, bisphenol-A (BPA), has received a tremendous amount of attention from research scientists, government panels, and the popular press. In this review, we have covered the above-mentioned controversies plus six additional issues that have divided scientists in the field of BPA research, namely: 1) mechanisms of BPA action; 2) levels of human exposure; 3) routes of human exposure; 4) pharmacokinetic models of BPA metabolism; 5) effects of BPA on exposed animals; and 6) links between BPA and cancer. Understanding these topics is essential for educating the public and medical professionals about potential risks associated with developmental exposure to BPA and other endocrine disruptors, the design of rigorously researched programs using both epidemiological and animal studies, and ultimately the development of a sound public health policy.

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name "Roundup") was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ; Other UBC ; Non UBC ; Reviewed ; Faculty

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name "Roundup") was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The broad-spectrum herbicide glyphosate (common trade name "Roundup") was first sold to farmers in 1974. Since the late 1970s, the volume of glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) applied has increased approximately 100-fold. Further increases in the volume applied are likely due to more and higher rates of application in response to the widespread emergence of glyphosate-resistant weeds and new, pre-harvest, dessicant use patterns. GBHs were developed to replace or reduce reliance on herbicides causing well-documented problems associated with drift and crop damage, slipping efficacy, and human health risks. Initial industry toxicity testing suggested that GBHs posed relatively low risks to non-target species, including mammals, leading regulatory authorities worldwide to set high acceptable exposure limits. To accommodate changes in GBH use patterns associated with genetically engineered, herbicide-tolerant crops, regulators have dramatically increased tolerance levels in maize, oilseed (soybeans and canola), and alfalfa crops and related livestock feeds. Animal and epidemiology studies published in the last decade, however, point to the need for a fresh look at glyphosate toxicity. Furthermore, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer recently concluded that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans." In response to changing GBH use patterns and advances in scientific understanding of their potential hazards, we have produced a Statement of Concern drawing on emerging science relevant to the safety of GBHs. Our Statement of Concern considers current published literature describing GBH uses, mechanisms of action, toxicity in laboratory animals, and epidemiological studies. It also examines the derivation of current human safety standards. We conclude that: (1) GBHs are the most heavily applied herbicide in the world and usage continues to rise; (2) Worldwide, GBHs often contaminate drinking water sources, precipitation, and air, especially in agricultural regions; (3) The half-life of glyphosate in water and soil is longer than previously recognized; (4) Glyphosate and its metabolites are widely present in the global soybean supply; (5) Human exposures to GBHs are rising; (6) Glyphosate is now authoritatively classified as a probable human carcinogen; (7) Regulatory estimates of tolerable daily intakes for glyphosate in the United States and European Union are based on outdated science. We offer a series of recommendations related to the need for new investments in epidemiological studies, biomonitoring, and toxicology studies that draw on the principles of endocrinology to determine whether the effects of GBHs are due to endocrine disrupting activities. We suggest that common commercial formulations of GBHs should be prioritized for inclusion in government-led toxicology testing programs such as the U.S. National Toxicology Program, as well as for biomonitoring as conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

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.