In August 1999, the NRS released its long awaited report on endocrine
disruption, commissioned in 1995 by the US EPA, the US Dept of the
Interior and Congress. The report was prepared by a committee composed
of indepedent academic scientists as well as a few with conspicuous
links to industry, either through funding of research (e.g., Steven
Safe, Texas A&M University) or through contract work (e.g.,
James Lamb, a lawyer working for a firm representing chemical companies).
The broad diversity of viewpoints represented on the committee prevented
consensus on many points. In fact, the first chapter of the report
spells out in detail where and why consensus was prevented. For
a detailed history of the committee's deliberations, see Sheldon
Krimsky's book Hormonal
the report is a cautious affirmation of the plausibility of issues
we raised in Our Stolen Future.
panel concluded there is strong evidence from studies of wildlife
and laboratory animals that chemicals can interfere with the body's
natural hormone system and disrupt the biological process of development
in the womb.
found some evidence from people, particularly for high exposures
and even for moderate exposures of one class of chemicals -- PCBs
-- that a hormone disrupter can affect human development.
report demonstrated there is ample evidence that humans are experiencing
an increase in the same kind of health problems that hormone-disrupting
chemicals cause in animals.
academy confirmed that human exposure to these contaminants is
widespread and that animal studies are a vital guide to identifying
health risks for people.
- The panel members also concurred that hormonally active chemicals
can affect humans and wildlife at high doses, but they could not
reach agreement about whether these compounds are in fact causing
harm at the levels encountered in the environment. As the report
stated, "whether environmental exposures....are responsible for
a variety of widespread adverse effects on the health of humans
and wildlife remains a topic of debate."
- With regard to the most debated health effects, such as testicular
cancer, breast cancer, and sperm count declines, the report concluded
that the crucial studies that might help settle the question have
simply not been done.
response to this report was to emphasize the Academy's conclusion
that no scientific certainty had been established. They then argued
that without certainty, endocrine disruption was not an issue for
public health concern.
is a classic argument from industry spokespeople: that the absence
of data proves safety. In reality, all it proves is ignorance.
Academy report, however, revealed far more than ignorance. It demonstrated
that the risks, while not proven, are both serious and highly plausible.
It concluded by recommending an ambitious, large-scale research
program to resolve unanswered questions, one commensurate with its
concerns for the potential risks entailed.
it could take several decades to reach scientific certainty about