Des perturbateurs endocriniens dans certaines marques de préservatifs

Sortez “couverts”, mais sainement – des marques plus éthiques existent…

En France, les cosmétiques et les aliments ont l’obligation d’afficher leurs ingrédients, mais ce n’est pas le cas pour les préservatifs…

Le Lanceurun site consacré au journalisme d’enquête, aux lanceurs d’alerte et aux lanceurs d’idées – a fait analyser le préservatif le plus vendu en France.

“Ces résultats sont incontestablement préoccupants. Ils sont a priori placés dans le lubrifiant et donc très absorbables par les muqueuses du garçon et de la fille. Certes, on peut dire qu’il s’agit de quantités infinitésimales mais, avec les perturbateurs endocriniens, la dose ne fait pas le poison. Le problème aussi est que ces faibles doses s’accumulent dans le corps au fur et à mesure qu’on utilise des préservatifs. Et enfin, quid de l’effet cocktail entre ces différentes molécules ?”

dit Charles Sultan, professeur en endocrinologie pédiatrique au CHU de Montpellier.

Lisez Des perturbateurs endocriniens dans les préservatifs, le lanceur, 9 janvier 2017.

Most doctors overestimate benefits and underestimate harms of medical treatments

Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests

Key Points

Question
Do clinicians have accurate expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, tests, and screening tests?

Findings
In this systematic review of 48 studies (13 011 clinicians), most participants correctly estimated 13% of the 69 harm expectation outcomes and 11% of the 28 benefit expectations. The majority of participants overestimated benefit for 32% of outcomes, underestimated benefit for 9%, underestimated harm for 34%, and overestimated harm for 5% of outcomes.

Meaning
Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions, but more often underestimated harms and overestimated benefits.

2017 Study Abstract

Clinicians’ Expectations of the Benefits and Harms of Treatments, Screening, and Tests, The JAMA Network, doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8254, January 09, 2017.

Image credit Julia Belluz.

Importance
Inaccurate clinician expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can profoundly influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention overuse.

Objective
To systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed clinicians’ expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test.

Evidence Review
A comprehensive search strategy of 4 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO) from the start years to March 17-20, 2015, with no language or study type restriction, was performed. Searches were also conducted on cited references of the included studies, and experts and study authors were contacted. Two researchers independently evaluated methodologic quality and extracted participants’ estimates of benefit and harms and authors’ contemporaneous estimates.

Findings
Of the 8166 records screened, 48 articles (13 011 clinicians) were eligible. Twenty studies focused on treatment, 20 on medical imaging, and 8 on screening. Of the 48 studies, 30 (67%) assessed only harm expectations, 9 (20%) evaluated only benefit expectations, and 6 (13%) assessed both benefit and harm expectations. Among the studies comparing benefit expectations with a correct answer (total of 28 outcomes), most participants provided correct estimation for only 3 outcomes (11%). Of the studies comparing expectations of harm with a correct answer (total of 69 outcomes), a majority of participants correctly estimated harm for 9 outcomes (13%). Where overestimation or underestimation data were provided, most participants overestimated benefit for 7 (32%) and underestimated benefit for 2 (9%) of the 22 outcomes, and underestimated harm for 20 (34%) and overestimated harm for 3 (5%) of the 58 outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance
Clinicians rarely had accurate expectations of benefits or harms, with inaccuracies in both directions. However, clinicians more often underestimated rather than overestimated harms and overestimated rather than underestimated benefits. Inaccurate perceptions about the benefits and harms of interventions are likely to result in suboptimal clinical management choices.

14 Filles Distilbène, telles qu’elles sont…

3’35 pour “parler” autrement du DES…

Vidéo publiée le 13 janvier 2017 par la chaine Association Réseau DES FRANCE DISTILBENE.

Une série de portraits de femmes touchées, traversées, abîmées par le Distilbène DES.

“Je veux que chaque femme touchée par le DES dans le monde puisse s’y retrouver : française, américaine, australienne, hollandaise, africaine, allemande… Je veux que ce témoignage muet soit entendu dans toutes les langues par toutes les cultures. Je souhaite qu’il permette aux femmes qui y participeront de déposer quelque chose derrière la caméra et de repartir plus légères et fières du courage qu’elles ont eu à le faire. Je veux que la gravité et la beauté de ces visages sans mots résonnent puissamment aux oreilles des lobby, dans les couloirs de la commission européenne, dans l’antichambre des tribunaux où se rejoue David contre Goliath à chaque procès de ‘fille DES’ “

Laetitia Dormoy, créatrice du projet.
Sources : la chronique de Marie Darrieussecq.

Le Distilbène DES, en savoir plus

The importance of patient reporting of adverse drug reactions

The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review

2016 Study Abstract

Aims
Current trends in pharmacovigilance systems are veering towards patient involvement in spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The aim of the current systematic review was to identify what is known and what remains unknown with respect to patient reporting to pharmacovigilance systems.

Methods
A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Journals@Ovid and the Cochrane Library. Studies were included if they contained:

  • reviews about patient reporting;
  • evaluation of patient reports to national or supranational pharmacovigilance authorities;
  • a comparison between patient and healthcare professional (HCP) reports submitted to pharmacovigilance authorities;
  • and surveys of patient experiences, opinions and awareness about reporting ADRs.

The methodological quality of the studies was assessed according to principles of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE).

The value of patient reporting to the pharmacovigilance system: a systematic review, wiley online library, DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13098, 12 October 2016.

Image credit lac-bac.

Thank you Malak Abou Taam for your tweet.

Results
A total of thirty four studies were included. Five of the studies were reviews (two of which systematic reviews), fourteen retrospective observational studies, nine surveys and six applied mixed research methods. Patient reporting has the advantages of bringing novel information about ADRs. It provides a more detailed description of ADRs, and reports about different drugs and system organ classes when compared with HCP reporting. In addition, patients describe the severity and impact of ADRs on daily life, complementing information derived from HCPs. Patient reporting is relatively rare in most countries.

Conclusions
Patient reporting adds new information, and perspective about ADRs in a way otherwise unavailable. This can contribute to better decision-making processes in regulatory activities. The present review identified gaps in knowledge that should be addressed to improve our understanding of the full potential and drawbacks of patient reporting.

Common veterinary antibiotics not quickly biodegradable infiltrate our aquatic environment

Which factors make drugs persistent? A look at sulphonamides in Polish rivers

Pharmaceutical pollution is a growing environmental concern in the EU, as the world’s second biggest consumer of human medicinal products. Up to 90% of orally administered drugs are excreted in the urine of animals and people1 , which means medicinal products can infiltrate the aquatic environment, where they may have negative effects on wildlife.

This study focused on sulphonamides, a group of chemicals used mainly as anti-bacterial agents. Although sulphonamides are now rarely used in human medicine, they remain important in animal medicine; in agriculture, up to 58 milligrams of sulphonamide can be used to produce just 1 kilogram of meat. As a result, levels of these drugs can reach 400 milligrams per kilogram in manure. The presence of these chemicals in the environment could promote drug resistance in bacteria in soil. After leaching into nearby water bodies, the drugs could also have negative impacts on aquatic organisms.

Which factors make drugs persistent? A look at sulphonamides in Polish rivers, Science for Environment Policy, 12 January 2017.

Assessment of the biodegradability of selected sulfa drugs in two polluted rivers in Poland: Effects of seasonal variations, accidental contamination, turbidity and salinity, science direct, August 2016.

Image credit PracticalCures.

Various factors are key to assessing the risk from a chemical, including its toxicological properties and how quickly it is broken down — the latter being the focus of this study. Chemicals that persist in the environment pose a risk because they can accumulate up the food chain, enabling them to reach potentially toxic levels. Some persistent chemicals can also move long distances, allowing them to travel far from their source.

According to the guidelines of the Stockholm Convention, substances with a half-life in the aquatic environment of over two months (i.e. it takes over two months for the chemical to break down to 50% of its original concentration) can be classified as persistent. Stockholm Convention parties, including the EU, are required to implement special procedures for such substances. Data suggest that the half-life of some sulphonamides is over two months, yet they are not considered persistent organic pollutants.

Many factors can affect the biodegradation rate of sulphonamides, such as the amount of light, the pH of the water and the presence of oxygen. This study investigated the biodegradability of four sulphonamides: sulphanilamide, sulpha-methoxazole, sulphadiazine and sulphathiazole. The researchers investigated the influence of weather conditions, water quality and experimental procedure on the breakdown of these sulphonamides in water samples collected from rivers in Poland.

A total of 19 water samples were collected from two highly polluted Polish rivers. Both rivers flow through one of the EU’s largest urban areas (the Upper Silesian Industrial Region), which has over 12 active coal mines and metallurgical industries and a human population of around 3 million. Immediately after sampling, a concentrated solution of sulphonamides was added to the water. The researchers quantified the concentration of the drugs in each sample over 28 days.

Before commencing biodegradation experiments, the researchers assessed the effect of sulphonamides on microorganisms in the water. After 18 hours of incubation, significant growth inhibition was observed, but after two days this inhibition decreased. This suggests that microorganisms are inhibited by the drugs but, over time, adapt to their presence.

Next, the researchers looked at how each drug was broken down by microbes (biodegraded). Microbial activity and thus biodegradation can depend on the effect of individual chemicals as well as external conditions such as temperature, leading to complex interactions.

Sulpha-methoxazole was the most resistant to biodegradation, with an average half-life of 72 days — meeting the definition of a persistent organic pollutant. As sulpha-methoxazole is the most commonly used sulphonamide in veterinary medicine and the most frequently detected in environmental samples, this result could be of environmental concern. Sulphathiazole was the most biodegradable, and had similar rates of biodegradation to the other two drugs, which were also rapidly broken down.

It is not only the type of sulphonamide that affects biodegradation. The researchers found that the factor with the biggest effect on biodegradation was temperature, with rates of breakdown significantly lower during the colder, winter season.

In Central European areas, vegetation increases with temperature from spring to autumn, leading to more biodiversity, higher microbial activity and a higher rate of biodegradation. However, during wintertime, temperatures drop and vegetation is suppressed, leading to reduced microbial activity and thus reduced biodegradation. This suggests the environmental risk associated with sulphonamides could be higher in the winter.

The authors also found a connection with pH, with acidity reducing degradation, and salt content (salinity), with higher salinity also reducing degradation (suggesting that removing salt from wastewater entering rivers could increase drug breakdown). Lower turbidity (the cloudiness of water, caused by particles it contains) also reduced breakdown, because the particles found in water support microorganisms. Finally, heavy-metal contamination from nearby industrial sites also inhibited sulphonamide degradation.

This study shows that various factors can reduce the biodegradation of sulphonamides and that risk may be particularly acute during winter, although further research is needed to clarify the ecological risk these compounds pose under different conditions

Legacy pesticides, and the compounds produced as they break down, remain a hazard to aquatic environments

Banned pesticides continue to affect toxicity in streams

The green revolution in the 1940s produced many effective and apparently safe pesticides, including synthetic insecticides such as DDT. Many of these chemicals were later discovered to have toxic effects, such as carcinogenicity, and subsequently banned from use. Another important issue is persistence; their long lifetimes mean some of these so-called ‘legacy’ pesticides can persist in the environment several decades after their use is prohibited.

Researchers examined the presence of both contemporary and legacy pesticides in 14 streams in Denmark, and used their results to predict the overall toxicity of the streams. They looked at both the influence of surface run-off and groundwater on concentrations in streams by taking samples in the streams shortly after periods of high precipitation, when surface runoff is high, and during a period of low precipitation, when groundwater was expected to be the largest source of inflow to the streams. Twelve of the streams were located in catchments where agriculture represents 80% or more of land use.

Banned pesticides continue to affect toxicity in streams, Science for Environment Policy, 12 January 2017.

Sources, occurrence and predicted aquatic impact of legacy and contemporary pesticides in streams, science direct, February 2015.

Water samples were collected from 2010 to 2012 mostly during May and June, the main periods when pesticides are applied to crops. The researchers used two methods to sample sediment: direct sampling of bed sediment using a core sampler, to give a snapshot for a specific moment in time; and time-integrated sampling for particulates (suspended sediment flowing in the stream), to which pesticides washed from agricultural fields can bind. They say this helped them to capture the pesticides which are expected to attach preferentially to (fine) particle surfaces.

The total toxicity was assumed to be the sum of the individual toxicities of all pesticides detected, neglecting any enhanced or reduced toxicity which may occur when different pesticides interact. The toxicity measure used was the LC50 — the concentration of the chemicals leading to 50% mortality for the test animals during an observation period of 48 hours — for the benchmark organism Daphnia magna. The study only provides an estimation of toxicity, by measuring the concentration of substances of known toxicity (the researchers did not assess the direct effect of the pesticides on aquatic organisms).

A total of 32 pesticides were detected. Two of the four most commonly detected were dinitro-ortho-cresol and trichloroacetic acid, both last sold in Denmark in the 1980s. The researchers believe these pesticides were generated in and transported from the atmosphere, rather than being present in surface runoff or groundwater. Three commonly detected pesticides in groundwater were mecoprop, dichlorprop, and dichlobenil. All of these chemicals were banned in Denmark in the late 1990s.

The estimated aquatic ecotoxicity increased by up to 10 000 times when legacy pesticides were included. Insecticides bound to sediments were found to be the largest source for the predicted ecotoxicity.

In this study, eight of the nine pesticides included on the Water Framework Directive’s1 list of 33 Priority Substances2 at the time of the study — shown to be of major concern for European Waters — were detected. For two of these, diuron and isoproturon, some detected concentrations were above or close to the EU aquatic Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs)3 — below which no adverse ecosystem effects can be measured. Meanwhile the fungicide hexachlorobenzene — never authorised for use in Denmark — and the insecticide lindane were detected in the sediment at concentrations well above the sediment PNEC values used in the context of the selection of the 33 priority substances listed in Directive 2008/105/EC4 .

Since the study looked at only selected areas of Denmark, it is possible that similar results would not be found elsewhere. However, the researchers note that most of the maximum concentrations measured are similar to the reported median values of concentrations for European streams.

The study indicates that, alongside contemporary pesticides, legacy pesticides, and the compounds produced as they break down, remain a hazard to aquatic environments. The researchers recommend that monitoring programmes which estimate the ecotoxicity of streams be adjusted to reflect this. Furthermore, they advise that a greater research emphasis be put on the analysis of groundwater, often presumed to contain low levels of pollution. They also highlight that pesticides bound in particular to suspended sediments were a major source of predicted toxicity and need to be further studied.

Concerns about the real independence of patient advocacy organizations

Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest

Key Points

Question
What is the nature of industry funding of patient advocacy organizations in the United States?

Findings
This survey study found that 67% of a national sample of patient advocacy organizations, virtually all of which were not for profit, reported receiving funding from for-profit companies. Twelve percent received more than half of their funding from industry; a median proportion of 45% of industry funding was derived from the pharmaceutical, device, and/or biotechnology sectors.

Meaning
Most advocacy organizations receive money from industry; therefore, increased transparency and robust conflict of interest policies and practices are needed to help these non-profit organizations maintain their independence.

2017 Study Abstract

Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest, The Jama Network, doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8443, January 17, 2017.

Image credit eyeforpharma.

Importance
Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) are influential health care stakeholders that provide direct counseling and education for patients, engage in policy advocacy, and shape research agendas. Many PAOs report having financial relationships with for-profit industry, yet little is known about the nature of these relationships.

Objective
To describe the nature of industry funding and partnerships between PAOs and for-profit companies in the United States.

Design, Setting, and Participants
A survey was conducted from September 1, 2013, to June 30, 2014, of a nationally representative random sample of 439 PAO leaders, representing 5.6% of 7865 PAOs identified in the United States. Survey questions addressed the nature of their activities, their financial relationships with industry, and the perceived effectiveness of their conflict of interest policies.

Main Outcomes and Measures
Amount and sources of revenue as well as organizational experiences with and policies regarding financial conflict of interest.

Results
Of the 439 surveys mailed to PAO leaders, 289 (65.8%) were returned with at least 80% of the questions answered. The PAOs varied widely in terms of size, funding, activities, and disease focus. The median total revenue among responding organizations was $299 140 (interquartile range, $70 000-$1 200 000). A total of 165 of 245 PAOs (67.3%) reported receiving industry funding, with 19 of 160 PAOs (11.9%) receiving more than half of their funding from industry. Among the subset of PAOs that received industry funding, the median amount was $50 000 (interquartile range, $15 000-$200 000); the median proportion of industry support derived from the pharmaceutical, device, and/or biotechnology sectors was 45% (interquartile range, 0%-100%). A total of 220 of 269 respondents (81.8%) indicated that conflicts of interest are very or moderately relevant to PAOs, and 94 of 171 (55.0%) believed that their organizations’ conflict of interest policies were very good. A total of 22 of 285 PAO leaders (7.7%) perceived pressure to conform their positions to the interests of corporate donors.

Conclusions and Relevance
Patient advocacy organizations engage in wide-ranging health activities. Although most PAOs receive modest funding from industry, a minority receive substantial industry support, raising added concerns about independence. Many respondents report a need to improve their conflict of interest policies to help maintain public trust.

Financial ties between researchers and drug industry independently associated with positive trial results

Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study

2017 Study Abstract

Objective
To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators’ financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial’s outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.

Design
Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Setting
Studies published in “core clinical” journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.

Participants
Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.

Main outcome measure
Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.

Results
A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers’ fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).

Conclusions
Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.

Full study
dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i6770 published 17 January 2017 by The BMJ.

Breast-Feeding with Breast Implants : is it Safe for My Baby ?

Infant drinks milk tainted with breast implant filler

The Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety launched an investigation after a mother found breast implant gel in her breast milk.

“while breast-feeding my baby, I found a transparent, sticky substance mixed with the breast milk.”

the mother said.

The rupture of silicon filler is a common side effect of breast implants…

Read Infant drinks milk tainted with breast implant filler, koreatimes, 2017-01-13. Image credit c3.staticflickr.

Endocrine disrupting pesticides in tap and surface water

EXPPERT Survey 8 – Exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides in water

Générations Futures EXPPERT survey 8 uses government reports on water quality in France as the basis for an analysis of the extent to which endocrine-disrupting pesticides and their byproducts can be found in French tap water. A European law banning endocrine disrupting pesticides came into effect years ago but has not been implemented because the European Commission has delayed proposing the needed scientific criteria to identify endocrine disruptors. Now, EU Member Countries are expected to take a final decision on a European Commission proposal this spring.

Paris, Brussels, 13 January 2017 – The report published today on endocrine disrupting chemicals in water in France is the eighth part of the EXPPERT survey. EXPPERT stands for Exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides.

Context

In July 2016, the French Ministry of Social Affairs and Health published its report, “Bilan de la qualité de l’eau au robinet du consommateur vis-à-vis des pesticides en 2014” (Assessment of the quality of tap water with regard to pesticides in 2014). In 2014, The Ministry of Ecology published its survey, “Pesticides les plus quantifiés dans les cours d’eau et dans les eaux souterraines en 2013” (The most frequently quantified pesticides in surface water and groundwater in 2013).

While these reports inform us about the presence of pesticides in water, they do not actually provide the toxicological properties of the molecules identified, and notably for those pollutants that could be endocrine disrupting chemicals.

Générations Futures’ work

Générations Futures carried out an analysis, which had never previously been conducted. The aim was to know whether any of the pesticide residues, or the byproducts from the degradation of these pesticides, covered in the investigations cited above, were potential endocrine disrupting molecules.

Our analysis identified molecules that are potentially disruptive to the endocrine system.

The following results, which are detailed in the EXPPERT 8 report, were obtained. They unfortunately show that:

  • 73.3% – that is, 11 out of the 15 most frequently quantified pesticides (or their degradation byproducts) in surface water in metropolitan France in 2013 are suspected of being endocrine disruptors.
  • 53.3% – that is eight out of the 15 molecules classified as the most frequently quantified pesticides (or their degradation byproducts) in groundwater in metropolitan France in 2013 are suspected of being endocrine disruptors.
  • Tap water: 50% – that is, 18 out of 36 pesticides (or their degradation byproducts), which were the reason that the water was classified as not conforming to standards in 2014 (either as NC1 – without restriction or NC2 – with restriction) for more than one unit of distribution of drinking water (UDI), are suspected of being endocrine disruptors.

Why this report?

As a reminder, on Wednesday 21 December 2016 (following a delay of three years), the European Commission attempted to have its new proposals on the criteria for endocrine disrupters voted. This would provide the basis for endocrine disruptors to be excluded from the market under the pesticides and biocides legislation. In November, Générations Futures had condemned the Commission’s proposals as unacceptable because they required a level of proof that was almost impossible to attain. The proposal also provided for a derogation in the event of “negligible risk” to humans. The Commission even added a new gift to industry in its proposal of 21 December by introducing – at the last moment and for the first time – the scandalous possibility of a derogation from the ban on endocrine disruptors. But events did not take place exactly as the Commission would have wished. Many Member States (including France and Sweden) opposed the proposal. The Commission found that it could not even hope for 40% support. The vote was therefore postponed until the spring.

“By bringing out one report after another, our association continues to sound the alert about the exposure of populations, especially the most vulnerable, to endocrine disruptors. This new report demonstrates again the urgency for action and the need to remove endocrine disrupting pesticides from the market,”

says Francois Veillerette, Director of Générations Futures.

“The EU has a unique opportunity to show that it truly cares about the health of its fellow citizens by proposing genuinely protective criteria for defining endocrine disrupting chemicals. That is not the nature of its current proposal. We urge all national governments to demand from the European Commission a serious proposal with a reasonable level of proof and without derogations to exclude suspected endocrine-disrupting pesticides,”

he concluded.

Contacts

EXPPERT Surveys
  1. EXPPERT Survey 1: Which endocrine disrupting insecticides are children exposed to everyday? Press release, Brussels, 25 March 2013.
  2. EXPPERT Survey 2: Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals and banned Pesticides in strawberries. Press release, 25 March 2013.
  3. EXPPERT Survey 3: How are children exposed to Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals? Press release, 9 July 2014.
  4. EXPPERT Survey 4: Nineteen endocrine disrupting pesticides found in samples of women’s hair. Press release, 12 March 2015. Our blog.
  5. EXPPERT Survey 5: Pesticides that are banned or suspected to be EDCs are found in green salads. Press release, 22 September 2015. Our blog.
  6. EXPPERT Survey 6: Homes close to pesticide spraying show all year exposure. Press release, 1 March 2016. Our blog.
  7. EXPPERT Survey 7: Exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides. What are the exposures in daily life? Press release, 11 October 2016. Our blog.
  8. EXPPERT Survey 8: Exposure to endocrine-disrupting pesticides in water. Press release, 11 October 2016. Our blog.