Gradient, 20 University Road, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012 Jul;42(6):465-73. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2012.690367. Epub 2012 May 26.
In this commentary, we critique a recently finalized document titled "State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters" (SOA Assessment). The SOA Assessment was commissioned by the European Union Directorate-General for the Environment to provide a basis for developing scientific criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors and reviewing and possibly revising the European Community Strategy on Endocrine Disrupters. In our view, the SOA Assessment takes an anecdotal approach rather than attempting a comprehensive assessment of the state of the art or synthesis of current knowledge. To do the latter, the document would have had to (i) distinguish between apparent associations of outcomes with exposure and the inference of an endocrine-disruption (ED) basis for those outcomes; (ii) constitute a complete and unbiased survey of new literature since 2002 (when the WHO/IPCS document, "Global Assessment of the State-of-the-Science of Endocrine Disruptors" was published); (iii) consider strengths and weaknesses and issues in interpretation of the cited literature; (iv) follow a weight-of-evidence methodology to evaluate evidence of ED; (v) document the evidence for its conclusions or the reasoning behind them; and (vi) present the evidence for or reasoning behind why conclusions that differ from those drawn in the 2002 WHO/IPCS document need to be changed. In its present form, the SOA Assessment fails to provide a balanced and critical assessment or synthesis of literature relevant to ED. We urge further evidence-based evaluations to develop the needed scientific basis to support future policy decisions.
在这篇评论中,我们对最近完成的一份名为“内分泌干扰物现状评估”(SOA 评估)的文件进行了批评。SOA 评估是由欧盟环境总局委托进行的,旨在为确定内分泌干扰物的科学标准以及审查和可能修订欧洲共同体内分泌干扰物战略提供依据。在我们看来,SOA 评估采取了轶事方法,而不是试图对现状进行全面评估或综合当前知识。为了做到后者,该文件将不得不 (i) 区分结果与暴露之间的明显关联和对这些结果的内分泌干扰 (ED) 基础的推断;(ii) 构成自 2002 年以来(当时发布了世界卫生组织/国际化学品安全规划署的“内分泌干扰物现状全球评估”文件)新文献的完整和无偏见调查;(iii) 考虑引用文献的优缺点和解释问题;(iv) 采用证据权重方法评估 ED 的证据;(v) 记录其结论的证据或背后的推理;以及 (vi) 说明需要改变与 2002 年世界卫生组织/国际化学品安全规划署文件中得出的结论不同的结论的证据或背后的推理。就目前的形式而言,SOA 评估未能提供对 ED 相关文献的平衡和批判性评估或综合。我们敦促进行进一步的基于证据的评估,以发展支持未来政策决策所需的科学依据。