During the past 20 years, investigations involving endocrine active substances (EAS) and reproductive toxicity have dominated the landscape of ecotoxicological research. This has occurred in concert with heightened awareness in the scientific community, general public, and governmental entities of the potential consequences of chemical perturbation in humans and wildlife. The exponential growth of experimentation in this field is fueled by our expanding knowledge into the complex nature of endocrine systems and the intricacy of their interactions with xenobiotic agents. Complicating factors include the ever-increasing number of novel receptors and alternate mechanistic pathways that have come to light, effects of chemical mixtures in the environment versus those of single EAS laboratory exposures, the challenge of differentiating endocrine disruption from direct cytotoxicity, and the potential for transgenerational effects. Although initially concerned with EAS effects chiefly in the thyroid glands and reproductive organs, it is now recognized that anthropomorphic substances may also adversely affect the nervous and immune systems via hormonal mechanisms and play substantial roles in metabolic diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and obesity.
This is an Open Access article: verbatim copying and redistribution of this article are permitted in all media for any purpose, provided this notice is preserved along with the article's original DOI. ; BACKGROUND In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.
