Manitou View Consulting, LLC, Northport, MI, USA.
Human and Environmental Toxicology, University of Konstanz, Constance, Germany.
Arch Toxicol. 2017 Aug;91(8):2745-2762. doi: 10.1007/s00204-017-1985-y. Epub 2017 May 20.
Recently published papers have alleged that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are causing substantial disease burdens in the EU and US and are consequently costing society hundreds of billions of dollars annually. To date, these cost estimates have not undergone adequate scientific scrutiny, but nevertheless are being used aggressively in advocacy campaigns in an attempt to fundamentally change how chemicals are tested, evaluated and regulated. Consequently, we critically evaluated the underlying methodology and assumptions employed by the chief architects of the disease burden cost estimates. Since the vast majority of their assigned disease burden costs are driven by the assumption that "loss of IQ" and "increased prevalence of intellectual disability" are caused by exposures to organophosphate pesticides (OPPs) and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), we have taken special care in describing and evaluating the underlying toxicology and epidemiology evidence that was relied upon. Unfortunately, our review uncovered substantial flaws in the approach taken and the conclusions that were drawn. Indeed, the authors of these papers assumed causal relationships between putative exposures to EDCs and selected diseases, i.e., "loss of IQ" and "increased prevalence of intellectual disability", despite not having established them via a thorough evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying animal toxicology and human epidemiology evidence. Consequently, the assigned disease burden costs are highly speculative and should not be considered in the weight of evidence approach underlying any serious policy discussions serving to protect the public and regulate chemicals considered as EDCs.
最近发表的一些论文声称,接触内分泌干扰化学物质(EDCs)正在欧盟和美国造成大量疾病负担,因此每年给社会造成数千亿美元的损失。迄今为止,这些成本估算尚未经过充分的科学审查,但仍被激进地用于宣传活动中,试图从根本上改变化学物质的测试、评估和监管方式。因此,我们对疾病负担成本估算的主要设计者所采用的基本方法和假设进行了批判性评估。由于他们分配的绝大多数疾病负担成本是基于这样的假设,即“智商下降”和“智力残疾患病率增加”是由接触有机磷农药(OPPs)和溴化阻燃剂(PBDEs)引起的,因此我们特别注意描述和评估所依赖的潜在毒理学和流行病学证据。不幸的是,我们的审查发现所采用的方法和得出的结论存在严重缺陷。事实上,这些论文的作者假设了假定的 EDCs 暴露与选定疾病之间的因果关系,即“智商下降”和“智力残疾患病率增加”,尽管他们没有通过对潜在动物毒理学和人类流行病学证据的优缺点进行彻底评估来确定这些关系。因此,所分配的疾病负担成本具有高度推测性,在任何旨在保护公众和监管被认为是 EDC 的化学物质的严肃政策讨论的证据权重方法中,都不应考虑这些成本。