Should public health standards for endocrine-disrupting compounds be based upon sixteenth century dogma or modern endocrinology?
John Peterson Myers, PhD, and Fred S. vom Saal, PhD Health standards established in the United States for exposure to toxic chemicals rest upon a core assumption: high-dose testing procedures used in regulatory toxicology adequately predict potential low-dose effects. Scientific discoveries over the past decade have profoundly challenged that assumption as information has grown about the commonness of contaminants that behave like hormones. Endocrinologists long ago discovered that hormones have effects at low serum concentrations that can differ dramatically, and unpredictably, from those caused at high levels (1). Indeed, sometimes they can be diametrically opposed. This endocrinological reality stands in direct conflict with any assumption that high-dose studies predict low-dose impacts. If contaminants with hormonal characteristics, known as endocrine disruptors, behave similarly, then the regulatory tests used to establish safety standards may be blind to important impacts. A grow
Related Questions
- If modern medicine is research proven and/or based on best practice standards, why is knowing about this important for people with DD?
- Should public health standards for endocrine-disrupting compounds be based upon sixteenth century dogma or modern endocrinology?
- May report card grades for a student with a disability be based on grade level standards?
