“On November 29, an op-ed article, co-signed by 94 scientists, and entitled “Let’s Stop the Manipulation of Science” was published in Le Monde,” wrote Gregory Bond, Ph.D., consulting epidemiologist and adjunct professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Mich., USA, in an article on Science20.com. “It makes numerous allegations, most prominent among them that industry is “manufacturing doubt” about the science on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). But as anyone who has followed the issue of endocrine disruptors knows, it is highly controversial and polarized with serious questions raised on both sides about exactly who is, in fact, manipulating the science. In the following paragraphs, I tackle this allegation and others made by the co-signers of the Le Monde op-ed and ask that you the reader arrive at your own conclusions.

“Allegation #1 — The petrochemical and agro-chemical industries, much like the tobacco industry before them, intentionally distort the science to manufacture doubt about purported EDCs.

“Response to Allegation #1 — This is a very serious allegation, and you would think the authors would cite at least one example to support it. But in fact they don’t. Not one scintilla of evidence is provided, which makes defense against it either very easy or difficult, depending on your perspective …

“Allegation #2 — The petrochemical and agro-chemical industries deny the science on climate change and oppose international efforts to address it.

“Responses to Allegation #2 — This allegation is completely false, and is easily refutable. The International Council of Chemical Associations (ICCA) has well-developed policies on energy and climate change that are publicly accessible. In brief, ICCA believes governments should undertake actions that will intensify the deployment of products and technologies to address global climate change challenges. Addressing global climate issues, particularly through improved energy efficiency, is very important to the chemical industry, which enables greater carbon efficiency throughout the economy with the use of its products …

“Allegation #3 — “The European Commission is about to implement the first regulation for endocrine disruptors in the world. While many other governments have also expressed concern about endocrine disruptors, regulations for these chemicals are missing altogether.”

“Response to Allegation #3 — The co-signatories to the Le Monde article continue to perpetuate a myth that the EU is the only government body that is regulating chemicals that are endocrine active. The truth is that these chemicals have been and continue to be regulated by a variety of means by government agencies around the world.  Even the EU Commission acknowledges this …

“Allegation #4 — “Never before have we faced a higher burden of hormonal diseases, such as cancers of the breast, testes, ovaries and prostate, compromised brain development, diabetes, obesity, non-descending testes, malformations of the penis, and poor semen quality. The overwhelming majority of scientists actively engaged in researching the causes of these worrying health trends agree that several factors are involved, among them chemicals capable of interfering with our hormone systems.”

“Response to Allegation #4 — There are actually two allegations here: (1) that the trends for all of the diseases listed are actually increasing everywhere globally; and (2) there is consensus among an overwhelming majority of scientists that chemicals of unspecified identity have been conclusively shown to be playing a causal role. Both are wrong …

“Allegation #5 — “It would indeed be worrying if any of our political opinions clouded our scientific judgment. But it is those who deny the science who are allowing their politics to cloud their judgment.”

“Response to Allegation #5 — This is another serious allegation, and one could more easily argue that it is the co-signatories to the Le Monde article who have allowed their politics to interfere with their scientific judgment. Indeed, many of their arguments, which are cloaked in the precautionary principle — have no or little basis in science and instead solely reflect political choices. Of course, the precautionary principle is not science, it is a policy choice, invoked when there is a lack of scientific certainty. But when and how it is applied is subject to considerable legitimate debate and must take into account a myriad of competing factors …

“Allegation #6 — “However, we are concerned that the regulatory options proposed by the European Commission fall well short of what is needed to protect us and future generations. They set a level of proof for the identification of endocrine disruptors much higher than for other hazardous substances, such as cancer-causing substances – in practice, this will make it very difficult for any substance to be recognized as an edocrine disruptor in the EU.”

“Response to Allegation #6 — The allegation that the EC has set too high a level of proof to identify EDCs is simply not true. The proponents have falsely claimed that the EC criteria to identify EDCs requires a show of harm in humans or wildlife. The EC has provided a rebuttal that proves that application of their criteria could lead to the identification of a chemical as an EDC based solely on animal data or even on in vitro data, without the availability of any evidence of harm from human studies …

“Allegation #7 — (Note: this is not so much an allegation but rather a recommendation to establish an expert organization modeled after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to review and assess the weight of evidence on EDCs.) “We therefore call for the development and implementation of effective measures that address both endocrine disrupting chemicals and climate change in a coordinated fashion.  An effective way of achieving this would be by creating an organization within the United Nations with the same international standing and charge as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This body would review the science to be used by decision makers in the public interest and would protect our science from the influence of vested interests.”

“Response to Allegation #7 — There is some irony in the co-signatories making this recommendation.  On the one hand their article asserts the science on EDCs is compelling enough to take urgent action now, and on the other their recommendation to convene a group of global experts to review the science would seem to be an admission that it needs a fresh look from an independent group.  So which is it? …

“So, I’ll now again ask you the reader to decide who’s really manipulating the science on EDCs?“

To read the complete responses to allegations, click here.

For a related commentary from the American Chemistry Council, click here.