To the surprise of none of the ACSH staffers, an article recently published in the Journal of Urology found no evidence of so-called endocrine disruption as a result of exposure to BPA and certain phthalates. We don t expect this result to be mentioned by many mainstream media sources, though, since we seem to remember making a similar assessment of the improbability of these dangers ten years ago. At the root of the issue is the whole concept of an endocrine disruptor.
I have said from day one that this is a bogus term. It means nothing physiologically or medically. It s just a term to make people sound erudite and give them license to cause panic about low doses of naturally-encountered chemicals, says ACSH s Dr. Gilbert Ross.
Dr. Whelan sees the motivation behind finding new chemical suspects: It s a fresh idea, relatively speaking. It was launched as a new endpoint, because the cancer endpoint was getting stale, especially considering all the good news about the decline in cancer rates, contrary to the cancer epidemic the alarmists predicted. A dangerous result of this brand of irresponsible reporting is a perceived lack of credibility for legitimate future discoveries.
ACSH s Dr. Ruth Kava remarks, The thing that irks me about the whole issue is that there might be a grain of truth that some compounds could affect the endocrine system, but there s no reason to think that these particular chemicals are the culprits. Indeed, naturally-occurring chemicals in foods would be just as valid as subjects for research.
