Trasande Leonardo, Vandenberg Laura N, Bourguignon Jean-Pierre, Myers John Peterson, Slama Remy, Vom Saal Frederick, Zoeller Robert Thomas
Department of Pediatrics, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA Department of Environmental Medicine and Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA NYU Wagner School of Public Service, New York, New York, USA Department of Nutrition, Food & Public Health, NYU Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, New York, New York, USA NYU Global Institute of Public Health, New York, New York, USA.
Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health & Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Nov;70(11):1051-1056. doi: 10.1136/jech-2016-207841. Epub 2016 Jul 13.
Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. Despite a United Nations Environment Programme/WHO report affirmed by over 100 countries at the Fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management, 'manufactured doubt' continues to be cast as a cloud over rigorous, peer-reviewed and independently funded scientific data. This study describes the sources of doubt and their social costs, and suggested courses of action by policymakers to prevent disease and disability. The problem is largely based on the available data, which are all too limited. Rigorous testing programmes should not simply focus on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid. Tests should have proper statistical power. 'Good laboratory practice' (GLP) hardly represents a proper or even gold standard for laboratory studies of endocrine disruption. Studies should be evaluated with regard to the contamination of negative controls, responsiveness to positive controls and dissection techniques. Flaws in many GLP studies have been identified, yet regulatory agencies rely on these flawed studies. Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
越来越多的证据证实，合成化学物质会干扰内分泌系统，并在整个生命周期中导致疾病和残疾。尽管联合国环境规划署/世界卫生组织的一份报告在第四届国际化学品管理大会上得到了100多个国家的认可，但“人为质疑”仍像乌云一样笼罩着经过严格同行评审且由独立资助的科学数据。本研究描述了质疑的来源及其社会成本，并为政策制定者提出了预防疾病和残疾的行动方案。问题很大程度上基于现有的数据，而这些数据非常有限。严格的测试计划不应仅仅关注雌激素、雄激素和甲状腺。测试应具备适当的统计效力。“良好实验室规范”（GLP）很难代表内分泌干扰实验室研究的适当标准甚至金标准。研究应根据阴性对照的污染情况、对阳性对照的反应性和解剖技术进行评估。许多GLP研究中的缺陷已被发现，但监管机构却依赖这些有缺陷的研究。应该使用经过同行评审且无偏见的研究，而不是“可靠科学”，来评估内分泌干扰化学物质。
