EU Parliament calling for the EU Commission to stop dithering and start acting on endocrine disruption

Endocrine disruptors drop the curtain on this European Parliament

On Thursday (18 April), the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution asking the European Commission to ensure a higher level of protection against endocrine disruptors (EDCs) by making a legislative proposal on the matter no later than June 2020.

It passed with 447 votes in favour, 14 against and 41 abstentions, and was actually the last text to be dealt with by this Parliament.

MEPs proposed treating EDCs or potential EDCs on an equal footing with substances classified as carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction, the so-called CMR substances prohibited in EU cosmetics legislation.

EDCs are a class of chemicals commonly found throughout our environment in children’s products, food containers, personal care products, pesticides and furniture. These hazardous substances alter the functioning of the hormonal system, having a negative effect on the health of humans and animals.

Close to 800 chemicals are known or suspected to be capable of interfering with hormone receptors, hormone synthesis or hormone conversion, according to a report drafted in 2012 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Health Organisation (WHO).

The EU started discussing the issue as early as 1996 and recognised EDCs as a health and environmental hazard in its “Community Strategy for endocrine disruptors” adopted by the Commission in December 1999.

The EU executive revamped interest in the topic last November publishing a new strategy for endocrine disruptors and launching a comprehensive screening of the legislation applicable to EDCs through a fitness check.

According to the lawmakers, the response is so far not adequate to the health threat, as the EU framework for EDCs suggested by the Commission in November lacks both a concrete action plan to minimise exposure to EDCs and a timeline for the next steps to move forward.

Plenary debate

Representing the EU executive before the plenary, Violeta Bulc defended the EU efforts:

“We can be proud of the progress we have achieved since there, we are recognised as one of the global leaders in dealing with these substances.”

“However, this is not enough: EDCs remain today a global challenge and a source of concern for many citizens,”

she said.

She added that the Commission adopted its communication in November in order to step up the EU approach and that the cross-cutting fitness check should be finalised in the first half of 2020, followed by a 12-week-long public consultation.

Before the end of the year, the Commission will also organise the first annual meeting of stakeholders and the launch of a new web portal, as part of the comprehensive set of actions to achieve the objectives included in the communication.

Although the resolution was backed by all the political groups within the Parliament, the European People’s Party (EPP) criticised a sort of “ideological hysteria” on EDCs and, in particular, the attempt of putting on the same level suspected and proven EDCs.

“This goes too far, goes too quickly and it’s not based on scientific evidence,”

said centre-right British MEP Julie Girling.

Green and liberal lawmakers strongly criticised the definition of EDCs included in the Commission strategy, as it seems to apply only to pesticides and other plant production products.

“Now we know that 80% of exposure comes through the food, so EDCs should be banned in all of the materials in contact with food but also in cosmetics and toys,”

said Belgian liberal Frédérique Ries.

Strong political signal

EURACTIV asked Prof. Barbara Demeneix, chair of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Task Force at Endocrine Society and among the authors of a scientific report on EDCs commissioned by the Parliament’s PETI committee published last March, for her thoughts.

She hailed the call to take concrete action to regulate endocrine disruptors, which are so prevalent in our daily lives.

According to the scientist, the Parliament has sent a strong political signal to both European ministers and the Commission with the adoption of this resolution by a clear cross-party consensus.

“Their call for clear and prompt EU actions is fully justified by the available science-based evidence of increasing damage to public health and it can no longer be ignored by the EU and other countries,”

Demeneix said.

Asked about the Perfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS), she said that the topic is particularly worrying, as several thousand of them exist and only a couple are banned.

“The fact that these substances interfere with thyroid hormone homeostasis and affect immune responses is clearly demonstrated, both by epidemiology and laboratory tests,”

she concluded.

Reference.

Glyphosate could be altering the wildlife and organisms at the base of the food chain

Glyphosate impairs learning in mosquito larvae (Aedes aegypti) at field-realistic doses

Glyphosate-based herbicides are not supposed to harm wildlife. But lab studies – such as this – keep finding otherwise…

What’s the world’s most widely used herbicide doing to tiny critters? asks Environmental Health News. Image Darron Birgenheier.

2019 Study Abstract

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide in the world. In the last years, the number of studies revealing deleterious effects of glyphosate on non-target species has been increasing. We studied the impact of glyphosate at field-realistic doses on learning in mosquito larvae (Aedes aegypti). Larvae of A. aegypti live in small water bodies and perform a stereotyped escape response when a moving object projects its shadow on the water surface. Repeated presentations of an innocuous visual stimulus induce a decrease in response due to habituation, a non-associative form of learning. In this study, different groups of larvae were reared in water containing different concentrations of glyphosate that can be found in the field (50 µg/l, 100 µg/l, 210 µg/l and 2 mg/l). Larvae reared in a glyphosate solution of 2 mg/l could complete their development. However, glyphosate impaired habituation. The higher the dose, the stronger the deleterious effects on learning abilities. This protocol opens new avenues to further studies aiming at understanding how glyphosate affects non-target organisms as insects. Habituation in mosquito larvae could serve as a parameter for testing the impact of pollutants in water bodies.

Endocrine Disruptors : from Scientific Evidence to Human Health Protection

The European Parliament publishes new report on endocrine disrupting chemicals, 2019

The European Society of Endocrinology welcomes the new European Parliament report on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) written by Prof Barbara Demeneix of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France and member of the ESE EDC Working Group and Dr Rémy Slama, INSERM (National Institute of Health and Medical Research), Grenoble, France.

Abstracts

Presentation

This study, commissioned by the PETI Committee of the European Parliament, presents the scientific knowledge regarding the health effects of endocrine disruptors, a class of hazards recognized in EU regulation since 1999. This report reviews the scientific evidence regarding the concept of endocrine disruption, the extent of exposure, associated health effects and costs. The existing relevant EU regulations are discussed and recommendations made to better protect human health.

1.1.2 The drug diethylstilboestrol (DES)

DES was developed as a synthetic oestrogen. It was prescribed from the 1940s onwards. Prescriptions were based on the erroneous assumption that it could prevent miscarriage and other pregnancy complications, which was shown to be wrong in 1953. In 1971, the USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advised against its use due to vaginal cancers occurrence in girls born to mothers who had used DES, while this cancer usually develops post-menopause. DES was banned in the Netherlands in 1975 and in France and Spain in 1977. Women who took DES have a slightly higher risk of breast cancer, but the most striking effects are seen on offspring exposed during pregnancy. Epidemiology shows in utero DES exposure to be linked not only to vaginal cancer in daughters of exposed women, but also to reproductive tract disorders, infertility and higher rates of spontaneous abortion. Sons display higher rates of genital abnormalities, and increased risks of prostate cancer; in addition, an increased risk of testicular cancer has been suggested. Importantly, effects such as increased risk of malformations of the male genitalia and possibly attention deficit and hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) are also observed in the grandchildren of DES-prescribed women.

In contrast to DDT, which is persistent in the body, DES is quickly eliminated, showing that chemicals can exert effects long after they disappeared from the organism, possibly on successive generations. There are biological mechanisms whereby the organism could keep a memory of exposure. One possibility relates to adverse effects that can be traced to epigenetic modifications. Work on animal models shows that certain DES impacts could result from epigenetic effects on the germ cells (the sperm and egg cells) forming in the in utero DES exposed foetuses).

Both DDT and DES provide examples of compounds able to interact with the endocrine system in humans or wildlife species (DES was designed to mimic a natural hormone, oestrogen; DDT and its metabolites were found to alter hormone production, mimic oestrogen and block androgen actions) and to cause adverse effects. They resonate with a concept developed in 1.7 and 1.9: the Developmental origin of Health and Disease (DOHaD), underlining foetal life as a determinant factor for child and adult health.

The scientific report, commissioned by the Parliament’s Committee on Petitions, provides an excellent overview of the severe threat EDCs pose for EU society and highlights the many shortcomings of current EU policies and legislation. Amongst the many proposed regulatory measures, it urges the European Union to rapidly develop a set of trans-sectorial and harmonised regulations to minimise human and environmental exposure to EDCs. As discussed in the report, based on an extensive literature review, EDCs or suspected EDCs are currently present in all media (water, diet, food contact materials, cosmetics…) and most EU citizens have dozens of (suspected) EDCs in their bodies.

In addition to improved regulatory measures, the report stresses the importance of speeding up test development to effectively identify EDCs and calls for additional research to address the many knowledge gaps in this relatively new scientific area.

These calls for additional regulation and research at the EU level are in line with a recent ESE Statement in response to the disappointing European Commission Communication on EDCs from 7 November 2018, which in ESE’s view lacks ambition to effectively tackle the many challenges in this area.

DES DiEthylStilbestrol Resources

Glyphosate-exposed shows a change in intestinal flora, study

The Ramazzini Institute 13-week pilot study on glyphosate and Roundup administered at human-equivalent dose to Sprague Dawley rats: effects on the microbiome

A study published on May 2018 by an international consortium of researchers, shows a change in intestinal flora in exposed animals, compared to control group. Image credit telegraph.

2019 Study Abstract

Background
Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are broad-spectrum herbicides that act on the shikimate pathway in bacteria, fungi, and plants. The possible effects of GBHs on human health are the subject of an intense public debate for both its potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects, including its effects on microbiome. The present pilot study examines whether exposure to GBHs at doses of glyphosate considered to be “safe” (the US Acceptable Daily Intake – ADI – of 1.75 mg/kg bw/day), starting from in utero, may modify the composition of gut microbiome in Sprague Dawley (SD) rats.

Methods
Glyphosate alone and Roundup, a commercial brand of GBHs, were administered in drinking water at doses comparable to the US glyphosate ADI (1.75 mg/kg bw/day) to F0 dams starting from the gestational day (GD) 6 up to postnatal day (PND) 125. Animal feces were collected at multiple time points from both F0 dams and F1 pups. The gut microbiota of 433 fecal samples were profiled at V3-V4 region of 16S ribosomal RNA gene and further taxonomically assigned and assessed for diversity analysis. We tested the effect of exposure on overall microbiome diversity using PERMANOVA and on individual taxa by LEfSe analysis.

Results
Microbiome profiling revealed that low-dose exposure to Roundup and glyphosate resulted in significant and distinctive changes in overall bacterial composition in F1 pups only. Specifically, at PND31, corresponding to pre-pubertal age in humans, relative abundance for Bacteriodetes (Prevotella) was increased while the Firmicutes (Lactobacillus) was reduced in both Roundup and glyphosate exposed F1 pups compared to controls.

Conclusions
This study provides initial evidence that exposures to commonly used GBHs, at doses considered safe, are capable of modifying the gut microbiota in early development, particularly before the onset of puberty. These findings warrant future studies on potential health effects of GBHs in early development such as childhood.

Glyphosate suspected to be an endocrine disruptor

The Ramazzini Institute 13-week pilot study glyphosate-based herbicides administered at human-equivalent dose to Sprague Dawley rats: effects on development and endocrine system

A new study, published on March 12 2019 by an international consortium of researchers, adds a new controversy about this product already suspected of being genotoxic or carcinogenic. Image credit republic.ru.

2019 Study Abstract

Background
Glyphosate-based herbicides (GBHs) are broad-spectrum herbicides that act on the shikimate pathway in bacteria, fungi, and plants. The possible effects of GBHs on human health are the subject of an intense public debate for both its potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects, including potential effects on the endocrine system The present pilot study examine whether exposure to GBHs at the dose of glyphosate considered to be “safe” (the US Acceptable Daily Intake – ADI – of 1.75 mg/kg bw/day), starting from in utero life, affect the development and endocrine system across different life stages in Sprague Dawley (SD) rats.

Methods
Glyphosate alone and Roundup Bioflow, a commercial brand of GBHs, were administered in drinking water at 1.75 mg/kg bw/day to F0 dams starting from the gestational day (GD) 6 (in utero) up to postnatal day (PND) 120. After weaning, offspring were randomly distributed in two cohorts: 8 M + 8F/group animals belonging to the 6-week cohort were sacrificed after puberty at PND 73 ± 2; 10 M + 10F/group animals belonging to the 13-week cohort were sacrificed at adulthood at PND 125 ± 2. Effects of glyphosate or Roundup exposure were assessed on developmental landmarks and sexual characteristics of pups.

Results
In pups, anogenital distance (AGD) at PND 4 was statistically significantly increased both in Roundup-treated males and females and in glyphosate-treated males. Age at first estrous (FE) was significantly delayed in the Roundup-exposed group and serum testosterone concentration significantly increased in Roundup-treated female offspring from the 13-week cohort compared to control animals. A statistically significant increase in plasma TSH concentration was observed in glyphosate-treated males compared with control animals as well as a statistically significant decrease in DHT and increase in BDNF in Roundup-treated males. Hormonal status imbalances were more pronounced in Roundup-treated rats after prolonged exposure.

Conclusions
The present pilot study demonstrate that GBHs exposure, from prenatal period to adulthood, induced endocrine effects and altered reproductive developmental parameters in male and female SD rats. In particular, it was associated with androgen-like effects, including a statistically significant increase of AGDs in both males and females, delay of FE and increased testosterone in female.

55 unique chemical compounds used for fracking are known as probable or possible human carcinogens

Unconventional oil and gas development and risk of childhood leukemia: Assessing the evidence

2017 Study Highlights

  • Concerns exist about carcinogenic effects of unconventional oil & gas development.
  • We evaluated the carcinogenicity of 1177 water pollutants and 143 air pollutants.
  • These chemicals included 55 known, probable, or possible human carcinogens.
  • Specifically, 20 compounds had evidence of leukemia/lymphoma risk.
  • Research on exposures to unconventional oil & gas development and cancer is needed.

Abstract

The widespread distribution of unconventional oil and gas (UO&G) wells and other facilities in the United States potentially exposes millions of people to air and water pollutants, including known or suspected carcinogens. Childhood leukemia is a particular concern because of the disease severity, vulnerable population, and short disease latency. A comprehensive review of carcinogens and leukemogens associated with UO&G development is not available and could inform future exposure monitoring studies and human health assessments.

The objective of this analysis was to assess the evidence of carcinogenicity of water contaminants and air pollutants related to UO&G development.

We obtained a list of 1177 chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids and wastewater from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and constructed a list of 143 UO&G-related air pollutants through a review of scientific papers published through 2015 using PubMed and ProQuest databases.

We assessed carcinogenicity and evidence of increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma of these chemicals using International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monographs.

The majority of compounds (> 80%) were not evaluated by IARC and therefore could not be reviewed. Of the 111 potential water contaminants and 29 potential air pollutants evaluated by IARC (119 unique compounds), 49 water and 20 air pollutants were known, probable, or possible human carcinogens (55 unique compounds). A total of 17 water and 11 air pollutants (20 unique compounds) had evidence of increased risk for leukemia/lymphoma, including benzene, 1,3-butadiene, cadmium, diesel exhaust, and several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.

Though information on the carcinogenicity of compounds associated with UO&G development was limited, our assessment identified 20 known or suspected carcinogens that could be measured in future studies to advance exposure and risk assessments of cancer-causing agents.

Our findings support the need for investigation into the relationship between UO&G development and risk of cancer in general and childhood leukemia in particular.

Evidence that Pesticide Active Substances are Transported Through Air

New study results prove a significant transport of pesticides over distances of many kilometres up to remote side valleys

Gone with the wind

Measurement of pesticides in the air in Vinschgau in 2018

Task

If pesticides are used in agriculture, they never end up in their target location one hundred percent. A part remains in the ground, reaches waters or is carried away through the air by wind and thermals. In orchards, characteristic for the landscape of the Vinschgau Valley in Italy‘s German speaking province South Tyrol, this transport of particles through the air is a particularly serious problem as the spraying isn’t only done from top to bottom, but also sideways into the trees.

The aim of the study was to measure this effect to

  • provide evidence that pesticide active substances are transported through air
  • trace the spatial distribution of the various active substances
  • trace the temporal distribution of the various active substances during one growing season.

Method

Two passive collectors (TE-200-PAS) produced by the company Tisch Environment were set up at each of the four locations with very different exposure scenarios and fitted with matching disks of polyurethane foam. The material is characterised by a large internal surface on which volatilised organic pollutants can adsorb.

This method was developed in the Canadian Ministry of Environment and has been used worldwide for many years, for example in the Global Atmospheric Passive Sampling Network. The use of the standardised collection medium enables a comparison between the pollution of the locations with an active substance when compared to each other and over a course of time.

The disks were purified in a laboratory before use to prevent pollutants from distorting the results. They were replaced every three weeks and sent to a laboratory for analysis in cooling boxes by express delivery. There they were extracted with methanol and the eluate was analysed for a total of 29 pesticide active substances that would probably be used in the region.

Locations

The four locations were selected in such a way that different levels of air pollution with pesticides could be expected due to different exposure scenarios. The specific locations were as follows:

  1. A garden within the closed village of Mals/Malles Venosta. The location is relatively well protected because the property is surrounded by a hedge and there are further buildings around the property. The location was selected to determine whether spray drift is detectable in built-up areas and at the edge of the fruit production core area.
  2. The second location was chosen as centrally as possible in an orchard in the central Vinschgau. The orchard is cultivated according to biological criteria, but is located in the immediate vicinity of conventional orchards.
  3. A third location was chosen remote from inhabited or cultivated areas above the valley floor in a side valley. The selected site is a slope near a stream course at the road from the village of Burgeis to Schlinig.
  4. Finally, a location was chosen where a lot of spray drift was to be expected without pesticides being used on the site itself. For this purpose, the two collectors were set up on a further organic farm in the central Vinschgau in such a way that air from the surroundings could very well flow into them.

Results

Further results are as follows:

  • In the first measurement period from 23rd February to 16th March none of the 29 active substances was detected at any of the four locations.
  • In the following eight measurement periods a total of 20 active substances was detected and up to 14 different substances were found in one sample at the same time.
  • The more distant the site is from the conventional orchards, the lower the amount and number of active substances detected. The highest pollution could be found at site D, followed by B, A and C.
  • Six active substances were detected at all four locations: fluazinam, captan, phosmet, chlorpyrifos-methyl, dithianon und imidacloprid. This indicates an intensive use and a significant potential of transport through air.
  • Six further active substances are found at the three locations D, B and A: dodin, penconazole, cyprodinil, difenoconazole, thiacloprid and etofenprox. So they are even detectable in the air in the village of Mals in a fairly well protected environment.

Many of the pesticides that have been detected in the samples represent a significant threat to humans and the environment. Thus, for example

  • captan is labeled with H351 (“suspected of causing cancer”) in the hazard classification of the EU Pesticides Database.
  • The insecticide thiacloprid, besides being suspected of causing cancer, is classified as “May damage fertility” and “May damage the unborn child” (H360FD) and is closely monitored by the EU Commission because it interferes with the human hormone system.
  • imidacloprid is extremely toxic to bees and other insects. The median lethal dose for individual honeybees was stated to be 3.8 ng in the authorisation procedure.

Conclusion

Overall, the results prove a significant transport of pesticides over distances of many kilometres up to remote side valleys.

The results provide a clear indication of the difficult conditions for organic farms in the vicinity of intensive, conventional apple orchards.

In addition, the results point out a risk aspect that has been underestimated up to now: Compared to individual active substances, the overall pollution with pesticides causes a significantly higher exposure that continues to exist over the course of the season and thus a correspondingly higher risk potential.

Reference.

Related

Theo Colborn: a pioneer in identifying the problems caused by endocrine disrupting chemicals

On International Women’s Day, ChemTrust wanted to highlight the work of one woman in particular who had a significant impact on the field of endocrine disrupting chemicals, Dr Theo Colborn (1927-2014)

A trained pharmacist, Theo Colborn had an interest in wildlife from an early age. After completing her Master’s degree in science in 1981, she was awarded a PhD in Zoology in 1985 at the age of 58. Colborn undertook research on contaminants in the Great Lakes on the Canada-US border, and it was this research that demonstrated how endocrine disrupting chemicals were entering the environment and altering the development of wildlife. She co-authored the book ‘Our Stolen Future’, and in 2003 founded The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX) in the US, a non-profit organisation which aims to reduce the production and use of hormone disrupting chemicals.

ChemTrust sat down with co-founder of CHEM Trust, Elizabeth Salter Green, to talk about the impact that Theo had on the field. Elizabeth previously worked as Director of the WWF-UK Toxics Programme, and has also worked for WWF’s European Policy Office, and for WWF International. Prior to WWF she worked for several years as a marine biologist, and co-authored the book “The Toxic Consumer”.

When did you first hear about Theo’s work?

I first met her when she came to the UK for the launch of her book, ‘Our Stolen Future’ in 1996. I was lucky enough to work with her on European policy on endocrine disrupting chemicals. But I had heard of her before that, as I was working for WWF-UK in the marine programme, and she was working for WWF’s US office.

What contribution did Theo make to the field of endocrine-disrupting chemicals?

Theo Colborn figured out that chemicals could disrupt our development. She was working in the Great Lakes on the Canada-US border in the 80s and could see that the populations of top predators were decreasing. She worked out – of course with the help of colleagues – that once these persistent chemicals were in the mother’s bloodstream they could be passed across to the child, be it an egg or a foetus developing in-utero. She could see that these chemicals had the ability to look like hormones and that they were disrupting the offspring’s development before they were even born. They were causing fertility problems in mammals, raptors’ shells to be too thin, and that was why the populations of top predators were decreasing. In 1991, she brought together 21 scientists from across the world to discuss hormone disrupting chemicals in the environment.

 Were there others working on similar research at the same time?

There were other people looking at chemicals and their impacts on wildlife and humans, but they were not able to work out the mechanism of the chemicals as hormone disruptors. They didn’t use the term endocrine disruptor until Theo had, and then applied the term to their own work. She absolutely led the way.

 What was the impact of her work on future research into endocrine disruptors?

She, with that group of scientists, coined the term ‘endocrine disruptor’, and it was used in all the scientific literature. In 1996, she wrote ‘Our Stolen Future’, which explained how these chemicals could be bad for not only the wildlife that she had studied, but for humans too. I remember her coming to the UK for the book launch, and she and WWF got such bad press for scaremongering. But, by the early 2000s the EU was spending €200 million on endocrine disrupting chemicals research programmes. We had gone from being vilified in 1996, to be the cause of hundreds of millions of euros being spent on research because they knew that Theo’s work was right.

 Was there any impact on policy or chemical regulation?

When Theo came to the UK in 1996, she said these endocrine disrupting chemicals are a problem. So, WWF wrote to the European Commission and told them that they are overlooking this whole group of harmful chemicals in their chemicals legislation, but we were told that nothing was going to be done. So, with Theo’s help, we got an Own Initiative report written in the European Parliament. An Own Initiative report is used if an issue is felt to be really important, but you can’t get leverage with the Commission. In this case, we were fortunate that Kirsten Jensen from the Environment Committee took the leadership in drafting  an Own Initiative report on endocrine disrupting chemicals report in 1998.  Following this report, the Commission had to do something, and that was then when they started to produce a strategy on endocrine disrupting chemicals. It is thanks to Theo Colborn, WWF and the other NGOs, that endocrine disrupting chemicals were put  on the agenda and also into REACH, which is what we use today to regulate harmful chemicals.

 What impact has Theo’s work had globally?

When she brought these scientists together in 1991 they were from all around the world, so it was truly a global group, and so her message had a global reach. There was upset amongst chemical companies and documentaries made all around the world. While she had a global impact, the only part of the world that made formal legislation on endocrine disrupting chemicals was the EU.

 What influence has Theo’s work, or working alongside her, had on your own career?

She has definitely been the inspiration for my life’s work. I personally felt, the way that she did, that unless we get on top of these endocrine disrupting chemicals we were going to undermine the wellbeing of future generations. And then it was almost a perfect storm. Theo was undertaking the research in the US, I was in the UK and understood the science and policy, WWF was the world’s largest environmental organisation, and the European Union was producing environmental legislation to try and protect human health and the environment. We eventually got the EU to include endocrine disrupting properties as a criterion for managing chemicals. That is thanks to Theo, and that is all that my life’s work has been about.

 How is Theo an inspiration for others?

One of the things about Theo is that she was quite softly spoken, she didn’t have a massive ego, she just knew her science was right. She was a woman and most of her adversaries were men in grey suits working for big chemical companies, and she had an enormous adversary in that. I felt that it was one woman espousing the science, with the whole of the chemical industry wanting to shoot her down. But she would not be put off by others, she just kept going because she knew the science was right.

 Also, she had come to this quite late in life. It wasn’t until she was in her 50s, 60s, 70s, that she produced this new hypothesis of hormone disruptors. So, I suppose that says to me, you might have had a career, or children, and be wondering what you can achieve now. Well, Theo started her whole career on endocrine disrupting chemicals in her 50s, and look at the impact that her work has had.

Written by Eleanor Hawke on March 7, 2019.
Reference. Image credit wikimedia.

Twenty-Five Years of Endocrine Disruption Science: Remembering Theo Colborn

Abstract

For nearly 30 years, Dr. Theo Colborn (1927–2014) dedicated herself to studying the harmful effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals on wildlife, humans, and the environment. More recently, she extended this effort to address the health impacts of unconventional oil and gas development. Colborn was a visionary leader who excelled at synthesizing scientific findings across disciplines. Using her unique insights and strong moral convictions, she changed the face of toxicological research, influenced chemical regulatory policy, and educated the public. In 2003, Colborn started a nonprofit organization—The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX). As we celebrate the 25th anniversary of endocrine disruption science, TEDX continues her legacy of analyzing the extensive body of environmental health research and developing unique educational resources to support public policy and education. Among other tools, TEDX currently uses the systematic review framework developed by the National Toxicology Program at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, to answer research questions of pressing concern. In this article, we pay homage to the tenacious woman and the exemplary contribution she made to the field of environmental health. Recommendations for the future of the field are drawn from her wisdom.

Les liens entre les industries agroalimentaire et pharmaceutique

Interview de Vandana Shiva, Brut, Février 2019

Selon Vandana Shiva, des multinationales s’enrichissent en vendant des médicaments pour soigner des maladies qu’elles ont elles-mêmes provoquées.

L’écologiste Vandana Shiva dénonce le “cartel du poison”, Brut, Février 2019.

How chemicals can affect the health of developing children

There is an increased concern about endocrine-disrupting chemicals, especially their interference on the thyroid gland

The impact of such chemicals on thyroid hormone levels, especially those of pregnant women during the first three months of pregnancy, may result in neurodevelopmental diseases, autism and IQ loss in the unborn child.

Barbara Demeneix, Professor from the French National Museum of Natural History, explains why these chemicals affect the signalling of thyroid hormones and what we can do to protect our children.

Video published on 7 February 2018, by EUchemicals.