Enhancing Credibility of Chemical Safety Studies: Emerging Consensus on Key Assessment Criteria

Objectives: We examined the extent to which consensus exists on the criteria that should be used for assessing the credibility of a scientific work, regardless of its funding source, and explored how these criteria might be implemented. Data sources: Three publications, all presented at a session of the 2009 annual meeting of the Society for Risk Analysis, have proposed a range of criteria for evaluating the credibility of scientific studies. At least two other similar sets of criteria have recently been proposed elsewhere. Data extraction/synthesis: In this article we review these criteria, highlight the commonalities among them, and integrate them into a list of 10 criteria. We also discuss issues inherent in any attempt to implement the criteria systematically. Con c l u s i o n s: Recommendations by many scientists and policy experts converge on a finite list of criteria for assessing the credibility of a scientific study without regard to funding source. These criteria should be formalized through a consensus process or a governmental initiative that includes discussion and pilot application of a system for reproducibly implementing them. Formal establishment of such a system should enable the debate regarding chemical studies to move beyond funding issues and focus on scientific merit

Social disparities in exposures to bisphenol A and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals: a cross-sectional study within NHANES 2003-2006

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Bisphenol A (BPA) and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFCs) are suspected endocrine disrupting compounds known to be ubiquitous in people's bodies. Population disparities in exposure to these chemicals have not been fully characterized.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We analyzed data from the 2003-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Using multivariable linear regression we examined the association between urinary concentrations of BPA, serum concentrations of four PFCs, and multiple measures of socioeconomic position (SEP): family income, education, occupation, and food security. We also examined associations with race/ethnicity.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All four PFCs were positively associated with family income, whereas BPA was inversely associated with family income. BPA concentrations were higher in people who reported very low food security and received emergency food assistance than in those who did not. This association was particularly strong in children: 6-11 year-olds whose families received emergency food had BPA levels 54% higher (95% CI, 13 to 112%) than children of families who did not. For BPA and PFCs we saw smaller and less consistent associations with education and occupation. Mexican Americans had the lowest concentrations of any racial/ethnic group of both types of chemicals; for PFCs, Mexican Americans not born in the U.S. had much lower levels than those born in the U.S.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>People with lower incomes had higher body burdens of BPA; the reverse was true for PFCs. Family income with adjustment for family size was the strongest predictor of chemical concentrations among the different measures of SEP we studied. Income, education, occupation, and food security appear to capture different aspects of SEP that may be related to exposure to BPA and PFCs and are not necessarily interchangeable as measures of SEP in environmental epidemiology studies. Differences by race/ethnicity were independent of SEP.</p

Fifteen Years after “Wingspread”—Environmental Endocrine Disrupters and Human and Wildlife Health: Where We are Today and Where We Need to Go

In 1991, a group of expert scientists at a Wingspread work session on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) concluded that “Many compounds introduced into the environment by human activity are capable of disrupting the endocrine system of animals, including fish, wildlife, and humans. Endocrine disruption can be profound because of the crucial role hormones play in controlling development.” Since that time, there have been numerous documented examples of adverse effects of EDCs in invertebrates, fish, wildlife, domestic animals, and humans. Hormonal systems can be disrupted by numerous different anthropogenic chemicals including antiandrogens, androgens, estrogens, AhR agonists, inhibitors of steroid hormone synthesis, antithyroid substances, and retinoid agonists. In addition, pathways and targets for endocrine disruption extend beyond the traditional estrogen/androgen/thyroid receptor–mediated reproductive and developmental systems. For example, scientists have expressed concern about the potential role of EDCs in increasing trends in early puberty in girls, obesity and type II diabetes in the United States and other populations. New concerns include complex endocrine alterations induced by mixtures of chemicals, an issue broadened due to the growing awareness that EDCs present in the environment include a variety of potent human and veterinary pharmaceutical products, personal care products, nutraceuticals and phytosterols. In this review we (1) address what have we learned about the effects of EDCs on fish, wildlife, and human health, (2) discuss representative animal studies on (anti)androgens, estrogens and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin–like chemicals, and (3) evaluate regulatory proposals being considered for screening and testing these chemicals