This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Communications with individuals and industry (2)'.


 
 
 
17 August 2018 
RECORDS MANAGEMENT SECTION 
 
The University of Edinburgh 
File ref:  T3/26/445 
Old College 
 
South Bridge 
Edinburgh EH8 9YL 
Mr Vincent Harmsen 
 
Direct Dial  0131 651 4099 
Sent by email: request-495644-
Switchboard  0131 650 1000 
xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx  
Email  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx 
 
Dear Mr Harmsen 
Your information request 
Thank you for your three emails of 4 July 2018 requesting information about 
correspondence sent or received by a named member of staff.  This letter responds to 
your request for correspondence between the member of staff and six other named 
individuals and four named organisations between 1 January 2016 and 1 July 2016.   
We apologise again for the delay in responding to your request.  As previously explained, 
we are experiencing a high volume of information requests at this time and a number of 
staff absences.   
Access to information 
As you note in your requests, the correspondence relates to 'endocrine disrupting 
chemicals' or 'endocrine active chemicals'.  Information about these chemicals and the 
regulation of them is environmental information as described in the Environmental 
Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs).  Therefore we are responding to your 
request in line with EIRs rather than freedom of information legislation.  In technical terms 
this means that the information you requested is exempt under section 39(2) of the 
Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).  This exemption is subject to the 
public interest test. 
The University acknowledges the public interest in openness and transparency, 
particularly in relation to the environmental.  However, as the public has a statutory right 
to access environmental information under EIRs, the University considers the public 
interest in withholding this information under FOISA outweighs the public interest in 
disclosing it under FOISA. 
Correspondence with organisations 
You asked for correspondence between Professor Richard Sharpe and the following four 
named organisations in between 1 January 2016 and 1 July 2016: 
UNIVERSITY SECRETARY  Ms Sarah Smith 
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336 
 

 
•  European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) 
•  European Risk Forum (ERF) 
•  International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) 
•  Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI) 
The University has searched its records and it does not hold any information in relation to 
this part of your request.  
Correspondence with individuals 
You asked for correspondence between Professor Richard Sharpe and the following six 
named individuals between 1 January 2016 and 1 July 2016: 
•  Alan Boobis  
•  Colin Berry 
•  Pat Heslop-Harrison  
•  Daniel Dietrich  
•  Wolfgang Dekant  
•  Helmut Greim 
The University does hold information in relation to this part of your request and I enclose 
some of this information. 
You will notice that parts of the documents have been redacted.  The redactions have 
been made either because the correspondence contains individuals’ personal information 
or because disclosure would harm the interests of the individuals.  I have also removed 
any obvious duplicate information that I noticed as I processed the request.   
Personal information   
Under the Data Protection law, disclosure of personal information must not breach any of 
the data protection principles in Article 5(1) of the General Data Protection Regulation 
(GDPR).  The individuals had no expectation that their correspondence would be 
disclosed.  Therefore in some cases, disclosing individuals’ personal information, 
including their views and opinions, would breach the principles.  The Environmental 
Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 does not require us to provide this sort of 
information as it is exempt under Regulation 11(2). 
Third party interests 
In some cases I cannot provide information because doing so would, or be likely to, 
cause substantial prejudice to the interests of the individuals who provided the 
information voluntarily to the University.  The individuals were under no legal obligation to 
supply this information, and they have not consented to disclosure.  The Environmental 
Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 do not require us to provide this sort of 
information as it is exempt under Regulation 10(5)(f). 

 

 
This exemption is subject to the public interest test.  There is clear public interest in the 
transparent operation of universities, particularly with regard to the role of academic staff 
in informing public policy.  We are therefore pleased to disclose some of the information 
you have requested.  However, there is also public interest in ensuring that academic 
staff working collaboratively together across different universities can have open and 
constructive pre-meeting discussions.  The public interest would not be served if 
academic staff felt inhibited in doing so for fear that this type of information would be 
disclosed against their wishes and contrary to their interests.  Therefore the University 
considers that the public interest in withholding some of the information outweighs the 
public interest in releasing it. 
You stated that the individuals were part of a delegation of scientists that met with the EU 
Commissioner for Public Health, Vytenis Andriukaitis, in 2016 to discuss the regulation of 
'endocrine active chemicals'.  You explained that the aim of your request is to create 
transparency and reconstruct public policy.  I therefore also enclose a paper by the seven 
academics who are the focus of your request.  The paper states their views on the 
subject matter and the same views were communicated to the EU Commissioner.  
Discussions about the drafting of the paper and draft versions are included within the 
attached correspondence.  The paper is publicly available at 
https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/38673/2/DietrichHeslopHarrisonEtAlRisk.pdf. 
Right to review 
If you are dissatisfied with this response, you may ask the University to conduct a review 
of this decision by contacting the University's Records Management Section 
(www.ed.ac.uk/records-management/about/contact) in writing (e.g. by letter or email) or 
in some other recorded form (e.g. audio or video tape).  You should describe the original 
request, explain your grounds for dissatisfaction, and include an address for 
correspondence.  You have 40 working days from receipt of this letter to submit a review 
request.  When the review process has been completed, if you are still dissatisfied, you 
may appeal to the Scottish Information Commissioner using the guidance at 
www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appeal.  If you do not have access to the Internet, please 
let me know and I will provide a copy of the relevant web pages. 
Privacy notice 
The University of Edinburgh's privacy notice, which describes how we use the information 
you have supplied about yourself and your request, is available on-line at Privacy Notice.  
Yours sincerely  
Ann-Marie Noble 
Information Compliance Manager 
 
Enclosure: 
1.  Paper – “Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding 
public trust in science experts and in science as a whole: The bigger picture. 
Chemico-Biological Interactions” 
2.  Correspondence 

 

 
If you require this letter in an alternative format, such as large print or 
a coloured background, please contact the Records Management 
Section on 0131 651 4099 or email xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xx.xx.xx 


 

326. 
Dietrich DR, Dekant W, Greim H, Heslop-Harrison P, Berry C, Boobis A, 
Hengstler JG, Sharpe R. 2016.Editorial: Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk 
assessment processes is eroding public trust in science experts and in science as a 
whole: The bigger picture. Chemico-Biological Interactions 257: 1-3. 21 July 2016. 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2016.07.023 
Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding public trust in science 
experts and in science as a whole: The bigger picture 
Daniel R. Dietrich*, Wolfgang Dekant Helmut Greim Pat Heslop-Harrison Sir Colin Berry, 
Alan Boobis, Jan Hengstler and Richard Sharpe 
doi:10.1016/j.cbi.2016.07.023 
Imagine we are beamed back into the 12th century and are staying overnight at a country 
tavern. We by our clothes met with both curiosity and hostility from the tavern regulars. In 
the middle of the night we are roughly wakened by the owner and some of his men and 
directly accused of having stolen from one of the regulars after first poisoning him. Despite 
our protests and the lack of any reasonable proof we are accused of being thieves and 
murderers and are subjected to trial by ordeal to prove our innocence. 
The trial takes the form of having our hands and feet tied and being thrown into the river; if 
we sink and drown we are obviously guilty, however if we float God has recognized our 
innocence and lets us live (judicium Dei). To a scientist, it seems likely we would drown. 
Thankfully, over the past 800 years the development of the judicial system has brought us to 
the point where an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. Whether the context is 
Criminal, where a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof is required, or Civil, where 
the “balance of probability” is the standard, the burden of proof lies with the accusing party, 
but in either case is based on objective evidence. 
If we were in the tavern now, it would be necessary for the accuser (or his legal 
representative) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt in this case, that we had poisoned the man 
and stolen the goods from him. In practice, the onus of the demonstration of proof on the 
accuser is not restricted to criminal cases but applies to many legal procedures in 
democracies. 
Unfortunately Europe, in the application of its legislation relating to chemicals, is in danger 
of falling back into the medieval approach. The most recent example is the advocacy group- 
[1], media- and NGO- [2] driven move to have glyphosate banned, despite solid evidence and 
multiple expert assessments [3], [4] and [5] that this herbicide is without risk to consumers 
and is the herbicide with the least negative environmental and health impact. The “public” is 
being misled by pseudoscientists to believe that the compound is highly dangerous to humans 
and the environment, a claim that runs counter to the evidence and to expert (critical) 
assessment of that evidence. The media are rife with quotes from poorly informed and often 
scientifically less well-informed politicians and others who had analysed their water, urine, 
beer, and vegetables and reported trace amounts of glyphosate, four-thousand-fold below 
potentially harmful levels for humans [6]. Under this onslaught of misinformation, decision-
makers may prefer to disregard evidence-based data that contradict a precautionary 
viewpoint. 

In a similarly misleading vein, there have been seemingly endless discussions about 
“endocrine disrupters” and their postulated human health effects, based on association 
studies. For these to be causal, they require us to accept that extremely low-level exposures 
cause effects in humans, whereas most of the experimental data indicate such exposures are 
without effect. Most recently, the debate on “endocrine disruptors” has shifted focus to the 
concept that doses of these compounds below their ‘no-observed-effect level’ (in animal and 
in vitro studies) can cause adverse effects (so-called non-monotonic dose-response curves) 
[7], even though the evidence that endocrine systems can be perturbed in this way just does 
not exist; indeed, there is ample human data on abnormally low hormone exposures that tell 
us this is not how such systems work. However, this detailed evidence is being ignored and 
the most prominent proponents of endocrine disruption-mediated human health effects are 
now using this to argue that hazard identification alone is necessary for regulatory purposes 
[7]. However, hazard characterization, including potency evaluation, and exposure 
assessment are the principles on which the protection of humans from adverse effects of 
environmental chemicals is undertaken, and has proved to be very effective. This is also the 
consensus approach recommended for endocrine disrupters [8]. This is a logical path that 
demands detailed evidence gathering and weighing of the science that then forms the basis of 
the information on which the legal process is based. Do we want to throw this trusted and 
tried process away? 
Relying on hazard identification alone relieves the “accusing party” of the burden of proof 
(i.e. obtaining the evidence) and allows for endless new allegations of potential effects on 
human health, for which evidence is not required – it is simply assumed to be present. We 
don’t think that any of us would like our doctors to use similar approaches for looking after 
our health; no, doctors want evidence of what is wrong so that they can target it specifically 
to restore normal health. The consequences of doing otherwise can be fatal [9]. What about 
the wider implications of a hazard-based approach? Will we ban cars or aeroplanes because 
they are clearly hazardous, or oxygen and water because they are hazardous to human health? 
In this regard, the putative hazard has now changed; now endocrine disrupters are being 
advocated as a prime cause for obesity and type II diabetes [10]. How credible is this? We 
know that obesity and type II diabetes can often be corrected by reducing appetite, food 
intake and additional exercise, difficult though this may be, but what evidence is there that 
reducing exposure to so-called endocrine-disrupting ‘obesogens’ can reduce the incidence of 
obesity and type II diabetes? There is no such evidence, yet we are asked to believe that 
‘obesogens’ are an important human health risk and because of this should be the major focus 
of future research and regulation efforts in this area [11]. Like medieval justice, the accusing 
(scaremongering) party never faces the consequences of their accusations or allegations. On 
the contrary, the accusing party will benefit from the uncertainty introduced. However, any 
damages incurred, whether these be to human health, through unintended consequences, 
society or the economy [12], are common good and not the responsibility of the accusing 
party. 
These trends are testimony to the apparent movement to overturn the use of verifiable facts 
and evidence-based risk assessment in regulation and politics. Further, they undermine the 
concept of burden of proof, central to our judicial systems, developed over the past centuries. 
Indeed, arguably, undue emphasis on hazard identification alone has already found its way 
into some EU chemicals legislation, ignoring more informative weight of evidence and risk 
assessment approaches, based on sound science, that have served society well over the years. 
Indeed, it is not merely chemical risk assessment that is currently at stake, it is science as a 
whole. Reports of the lack of reproducibility of published scientific findings [13] and public 

disagreement among scientists (and pseudoscientists) on the dangers of compounds, despite 
good evidence to the contrary, erodes public trust in scientists, and science as a whole – few 
without scientific training realize that science progresses by the detection of, and subsequent 
elimination of, errors. This is why acting on findings in isolation, all too common an 
occurrence today, is an unsound strategy. Perhaps equally important, failure of decision 
makers to recognise this, leads to unnecessarily restrictive and potentially damaging 
regulation. 
Arguments such as those we voice above are now routinely attacked, sometimes with blatant 
disregard for the facts and scientific evidence provided, on the basis that ‘this is what the 
chemical industry wants, so these authors must be speaking on behalf of that industry’ or 
worse ‘these scientist must be paid by industry, thus are corrupt and therefore trivialize 
hazards’ [14], [15] and [16]. This is not the case! But such unwarranted accusations of 
conflicts of interest in the absence of robust scientific evidence to support their assertions 
[17] and [18], have become the mode du jour in such disputes [19]. In some cases, this has 
resulted in conflict of interest policies that could lead to an overall lack of scientific balance 
among the group of experts considered not to be thus conflicted. A number of NGO’s have an 
interest in maintaining public concerns about specific issues, and indeed may rely on such 
concerns for charitable donations. Hence, there is a strong motivation to disregard data that 
contradicts a precautionary point of view. Regrettably, some scientists appear to put the need 
to obtain research funding above the objective appraisal of the evidence. Unlike potential 
financial bias, these possible conflicts of interest [19] are rarely considered in such debates. 
But these attitudes can distort opinions provided to organisations such as EFSA, WHO, 
WHO/IARC, EPA and others. The consequence is that scientific argument and weight of 
evidence that might disagree with the initial allegation or accusation, can be undermined. 
This process damages the credibility of governmental organizations and the well-developed 
processes that are the very foundations of our society and our well-being. Simply following 
the discussion on the alleged effects of MMR vaccine on autism provides ample evidence of 
this [20]. 
For sure, the chemical industry has every interest in protecting its products and profits, and 
will lobby to this effect. However, to ensure longevity of their products and to avoid 
litigation, industry is as interested in an evidence-based approach to risk assessment as we 
are, and collecting the evidence is a huge and expensive task that industry has to undertake, 
as is mandated by the regulating authorities, to justify the safety of its products. Is it sensible 
to say “No” to such evidence and instead to assume that if a chemical is hazardous it should 
be banned, irrespective of how low the concentrations are that we, the public, are exposed to? 
In essence, we would be saying that an evidence-based approach is not as good as a 
presumptive approach based on no evidence. This is to throw away scientific principles and 
good practice and to replace it with something akin to witchcraft. 
It is time to end the influence of pseudoscience and pseudoscientists, including some self-
appointed public advocacy groups, on European legislation. We advocate this not because of 
what the chemical industry may want or not want, but because it is the most credible, 
scientifically-sound and societally-beneficial solution, utilising well-defined and transparent 
processes of evidence gathering, weighing and risk assessment that should be at the core of 
decisions that support all legal procedures. This system is what has been developed, tried and 
tested in Europe over the years and is demonstrably protective of human health. Thus this 
surely should have been the aim of the European Commission in its decision on the criteria 
for EDCs in the regulation of biocides and pesticides [21]. 

References 
[1] A.T.W.I Action, Protect Our Health, Stop Monsanto (2016) 
[2] P.A.N. Europe Environmental NGOs Press Charges Against Monsanto German 
government institute and European Food Safety Authority (2016) 
[3] J. FAO/WHO Pesticide residues in food 2016 J. FAO/WHO (Ed.), Special Session of the 
Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, JMPR FAO/WHO (2016), p. 123 
[4] B.f. Risikobewertung The BfR Has Finalised its Draft Report for the Re-evaluation of 
Glyphosate BfR, Berlin (2015) 
[5] E.F.S. Authority Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the 
active substance glyphosate EFSA J., 13 (2015), pp. 4302–4408 
[6] B.f. Risikobewertung Glyphosate in Urine – Concentrations Are Far below the Range 
Indicating a Potential Health Hazard Opinion No. 014/2013Berlin (2013) 
[7] E. News Society Leaders Help Inform International EDC Regulations (2016) 
[8] R. Solecki, A. Kortenkamp, Å. Bergman, I. Chahoud, G.H. Degen, D.R. Dietrich, H. 
Greim, H. Håkansson, U. Hass, T. Husoy, M. Jacobs, S. Jobling, A. Mantovani, P. Marx-
Stoelting, A. Piersma, R. Slama, R. Stahlmann, M. van den Berg, R.T. Zoeller, A.R. Boobis 
Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals – a consensus 
statement Environ. Health Perspect. (2016) (in press) 
[9] P. Posadzki, A. Alotaibi, E. Ernst Adverse effects of homeopathy: a systematic review of 
published case reports and case series. Int. J. Clin. Pract., 66 (2012), pp. 1178–1188 
[10] J. Legler, T. Fletcher, E. Govarts, M. Porta, B. Blumberg, J.J. Heindel, L. Trasande 
Obesity, diabetes, and associated costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the 
European Union J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab., 100 (2015), pp. 1278–1288 
[11] J.J. Heindel et al. Parma consensus statement on metabolic disruptors Environ. Health, 
14 (2015), p. 54 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-015-0042-7 
[12] D.R. Dietrich, W. Dekant, H. Greim, P. Heslop-Harrison, C. Berry, A. Boobis, J. 
Hengstler, R.M. Sharpe Don’t mar legislation with pseudoscience. Nature, 535 (2016), p. 355 
[13] M. Baker 1,500 scientists lift the lid on reproducibility. Nature, 533 (2016), pp. 452–454 
[14] J. Garwood Do toxic editors trivialise hidden hazards? Lab. Times, 3 (2014), pp. 39–42 
[15] S. Horel A Toxic Affair: Season Finale Corporate Europe Observatory (2016) 
[16] S. Horel, B. Bienkowsi Special Report: Scientists Critical of EU Chemical Policy Have 
Industry Ties (2013) Environmental Health News 

[17] R. Slama, J.P. Bourguignon, B. Demeneix, R. Ivell, G. Panzica, A. Kortenkamp, T. 
Zoeller Scientific issues relevant to setting regulatory criteria to identify endocrine disrupting 
substances in the European Union Environ. Health Perspect. (2016) 
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP217 
[18] P. Grandjean, D. Ozonoff Transparency and translation of science in a modern world 
Environ. Health, 12 (2013), p. 70 
[19] D.R. Dietrich, J.G. Hengstler Conflict of interest statements: current dilemma and a 
possible way forward Arch. Toxicol. (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00204-016-1783-y 
[20] P. Hobson-West ‘Trusting blindly can be the biggest risk of all’: organised resistance to 
childhood vaccination in the UK Sociol. Health Illn., 29 (2007), pp. 198–215 
[21] E. Commission Press Release 15.06.2016: Commission Presents Scientific Criteria to 
Identify Endocrine Disruptors in the Pesticides and Biocides Areas European Commission, 
Bruxelles (2016) 
*Corresponding author. 
Daniel R. Dietrich Human and Environmental Toxicology, University of Konstanz, 78457 
Konstanz, Germany 
Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg, Versbacher Str. 9, 
97078 Wuerzburg, Germany 
Helmut Greim Technical University of Munich, Hohenbachernstr. 15-17, 85354 Freising-
Weihenstephan, Germany 
Pat Heslop-Harrison Department of Genetics, University Road, University of Leicester, LE1 
7RH, United Kingdom 
Sir Colin Berry Queen Mary – Pathology, Queen Mary, London, London E1 4NS, United 
Kingdom 
Alan Boobis Department of Medicine, Hammersmith Campus, Imperial College London, 
London W12 0NN, United Kingdom 
Jan Hengstler Department of Toxicology, IfADo, Ardeystrasse 67, 44139 Dortmund, 
Germany 
Richard Sharpe MRC Centre for Reproductive Health, 47 Little France Crescent, University 
of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ United Kingdom 
Available online 21 July 2016 
 

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Friday, 1 July 2016 at 08:53
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Daniel Dietrich <Daniel.Dietrich@uni-
konstanz.de>, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  
 
 'Helmut Greim'
, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, "Heslop-
Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: Re: GMO
 
Me also
 
Richard
 
From: <Boobis>, Alan R <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Date: Friday, 1 July 2016 08:19
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, 
 Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, '
 'Helmut Greim' 
, Colin Berry
, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Information
Services <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Subject: RE: GMO
 
Dan
 
I have signed the petition.  Very pleased that this is possible.
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
 
From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx ] 
Sent: 01 July 2016 08:14
To: 

 Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >; 
 'Helmut Greim'
; Colin Berry 
; Heslop-Harrison,
Pat (Prof.) <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >; SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >; Boobis, Alan R
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Subject: FW: GMO
 
Dear colleagues
Best
Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
Von: 
Datum: 
Freitag, 1. Juli 2016 02:58
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Betreff: GMO
 
Daniel:
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
 







Dear 
 
Sincerely
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
-- 
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg
Versb
7078 Wuerzburg, Germany
Tel. 
Fax: 
Mobil: 

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Thursday, 16 June 2016 at 10:41
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
Hi Dan
 
Coi attached.
 
Good luck
 
Richard
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 14:14
To: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Cc: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, 
 "Boobis,
Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de

 
Von: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Datum: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2016 14:52
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry 
Betreff: Re: EDC announcement
 
Thanks Dan, that’s more or less what I concluded, but I always find such pronouncements to be so
obtuse (because of trying to please and appease all), that I’m never sure that I get the correct message.
What did ring through was the emphasis throughout that scientific method and scientific evidence
would be the drivers, which  sounds very  Andriukaitis-infuenced (so maybe we had some effect).
 
Dan, what did you mean by your last sentence?
 
BW
 
Richard
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 13:45
To: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
 Colin Berry 
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de

 
Von: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Datum: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2016 14:34
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Betreff: Re: EDC announcement
 
 I need some of you more used to EC-language to interpret this for me, as it reads a bit self-
contradictorily (to me) - i.e. everyones a winner!
 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2152_en.htm
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number
SC005336.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number
SC005336.


 
Science /AAAS Authorship Form and 
Statement of Conflicts of Interest 
 
Author Name: __________
Richard  _______
Sharpe  
Manuscript# _________________ 
Title___________
Allowing 
________________
pseudoscience into EU 
______
risk 
______
assessment  __________
processes is 
______
eroding 
___
public  ___
trust  __________
in science 
______
experts 
__
and  ____
in 
___
science   
as a whole
Each author must complete the following form prior to acceptance of their paper: 
I. Authorship:  
The authorship policies of Science follow those recommended by the report "On Being a Scientist", 3rd Edition, 
published by the US National Academy of Sciences (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12192.html). In particular, we 
note that "just providing laboratory space for a project or furnishing a sample used in the research is not sufficient 
to be included as an author, although such contributions... may be recognized in a separate acknowledgement 
section."  
In order to meet our requirements for authorship of a paper, you must have participated significantly in the 
reported research or writing of the paper. Please affirm that you meet these criteria by indicating your contribution 
to all of the following descriptions (circle from 0% responsible to 100% responsible):  I… 
 
Authorship Activity 
Level of participation 
Participated in the design and/or interpretation of the reported experiments or results. 
0 20 40 60 80 100% 
Participated in the acquisition and/or analysis of data. 
0 20 40 60 80 100% 
State Which data: ___________________________________________ 
Participated in drafting and/or revising the manuscript. 
0 20 40 60 80 100% 
Was primarily responsible for a particular, specialized role in the research, e.g. 
statistical analysis,  crystallography, preparation of cell lines; please briefly state 
0 20 40 60 80 100% 
which: ____________________________________________________ 
 
Provided administrative, technical or supervisory support. 
0 20 40 60 80 100% 
 
 

The senior author from each lab or group must answer this question: I have personally checked all the original 
data that was generated by my lab or group:    
____Yes   ____Not applicable; I am not the senior author or lab head.   
If yes, these data are presented in these figures and tables (including the Supporting Online Material):  
_______________________________________________________________________. 
 
I have or will review the revised manuscript and approve of its resubmission to Science for publication.  
____Yes  ____No 
If my university or institution has a separate publication license that applies to me (as at e.g.,Harvard, MIT, Open 
University) I have applied for a waiver.   This does not apply to waivers for the U.S. or other government 
employees (click NA) 
____Yes  ____  There are no publication policies or restrictions limiting my ability to grant exclusive publication 
rights to AAAS or not applicable as I am employed by the U.S. or other governments. 
 
II. Data sharing:  
I affirm that all data necessary for a reader of Science to understand and evaluate the conclusions of the paper will 
be archived in an approved database and made available to any reader.  
____Yes  ____No 
 
III. Materials sharing:  
After publication, all reasonable requests for materials and data must be fulfilled.  I will abide by this 
responsibility: 
____Yes 
Science must be informed of any restrictions on sharing of materials [Materials Transfer Agreements (MTA’s) or 
patents, for example] applying to materials used in the reported research.  
____No, there are no MTA’s 
____Yes—information on MTA’s is described below. 
 
 
 

 
IV. Conflict of Interest:  
Science has a primary responsibility to its readers and to the public to provide in its pages clear and unbiased 
scientific results and analyses. We think that our readers should be informed of additional relationships of our 
authors that could pose a conflict of interest. Thus, for readers to evaluate the data and opinions presented in 
Science, they must be informed of financial and other interests of our authors that may be at odds with unbiased 
presentation of data or analysis.  
Therefore, Science believes that manuscripts (Brevia, Essays, Perspectives, Policy Forums, Reports, Research 
Articles, Reviews, and Viewpoints) should be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of their 
affiliations, funding sources, or financial holdings that might raise questions about possible sources of bias. 
Disclosure is accomplished in three ways:  
First, by a complete listing of the current institutional affiliations of the authors.  
This list must include academic as well as corporate and other industrial affiliations. As the editors deem 
appropriate, items in this list will be included in the author affiliations printed in the manuscript. Please indicate 
below: 
____All my affiliations are listed on the title page of the paper. 
Additional affiliations not on the title page are: 
 
 
 
 
Second, through the acknowledgment of all financial contributions to the work being reported, including 
contributions "in kind."
 All funding sources will be listed in the published manuscript. Please indicate below:  
____All my funding sources for this study are listed in the acknowledgement section of the paper.  
____Additional funding sources not noted in the manuscript are: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 





 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 14:19
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
Dan I sent my COI yesterday, but here it is again.
Richard
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 14:14
To: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Cc: Colin Berry 

 "Boobis,
Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
Von: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Datum: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2016 14:52
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 

, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Betreff: Re: EDC announcement
 
Thanks Dan, that’s more or less what I concluded, but I always find such pronouncements to be so
obtuse (because of trying to please and appease all), that I’m never sure that I get the correct message.
What did ring through was the emphasis throughout that scientific method and scientific evidence
would be the drivers, which  sounds very  Andriukaitis-infuenced (so maybe we had some effect).
 
Dan, what did you mean by your last sentence?
 
BW
 
Richard
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 13:45
To: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
Von: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Datum: Mittwoch, 15. Juni 2016 14:34
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 

, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Betreff: Re: EDC announcement
 
 I need some of you more used to EC-language to interpret this for me, as it reads a bit self-
contradictorily (to me) - i.e. everyones a winner!
 
http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-16-2152_en.htm
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number
SC005336.
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number
SC005336.

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 at 14:12
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Daniel Dietrich <Daniel.Dietrich@uni-
konstanz.de>, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
 Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
I guess that many different things can be read into the wording, and ultimately it will all
depend on what actions result. The battlefield will clearly be on the pesticides/biocides and
what derogations are allowed and what will determine these key decision-points.
In that regard it seems that not much has changed, although the wording may indicate that
derogation may involve more of an uphill battle than beforehand?
I am told by a journalist that environmental groups are ‘already calling foul on the plan’,
but presumably that’s because there is still a theoretical escape door. 
 
Richard
  
 
From: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Date: Wednesday, 15 June 2016 13:52
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, SHARPE Richard
<x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang
Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)"
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry
Subject: Re: EDC announcement
 
I am not so sure that this is good news.  More detail can be found
at http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/docs/com_2016_350_en.pdf and it is
not encouraging.
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
 
 

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 11:44
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  "Greim, Helmut" 
,
Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)"
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  
 Colin Berry
<xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: Re: Perspectives / Correspondence for The LAncet
 
Hi Dan
 
My COI form also attached.
Thanks for your lead and hard work on this.
 
BW
 
Richard 
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Date: Monday, 13 June 2016 16:13
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, SHARPE Richard
<x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
, Colin Berry 
Subject: Re: Perspectives / Correspondence for The LAncet
 
All
Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
 
Universitätsstrasse. 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
 
Telephone:      
                
Portable-Phone: 
 
Fax:            

email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
 
Von: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx
>
Datum: Montag, 13. Juni 2016 16:55
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>,
"Greim, Helmut" 
,
Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>,
SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>, "Heslop-Harrison,
Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
>, 
 Colin Berry
<xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
>
Betreff: Re: Perspectives / Correspondence for The LAncet
 
Dan
 
In the interests of full disclosure, I now try to be comprehensive in such declarations. 
Please see attached.
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Sent: 13 June 2016 15:35
To: Greim, Helmut; Wolfgang Dekant; Boobis, Alan R; SHARPE Richard; Heslop-Harrison, Pat
(Prof.); 
; Colin Berry
Subject: FW: Perspectives / Correspondence for The LAncet
 
Dear all
 
Dan
 
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT

Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
 
Universitätsstrasse. 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
 
Telephone:      
                
Portable-Phone: 
 
Fax:            
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
 
Von: 
Datum: Montag, 13. Juni 2016 15:11
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>
Betreff: RE: Perspectives / Correspondence for The LAncet
 
Dear Prof. Dietrich,
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx

Sent: 13 June 2016 10:04
To: 
Subject: Perspectives / Correspondence for The LAncet
Importance: High
 

Dan Dietrich
 
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
 
Universitätsstrasse. 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
 
Telephone:      
                
Portable-Phone: 
 
Fax:            
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Saturday, 11 June 2016 at 22:19
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  "Boobis, Alan R"
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  "Heslop-Harrison, Pat
(Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  
Subject: Re: in case you've not seen
 
I'm not suggesting this for inclusion/modification of the editorial/opinion piece, but I
wondered tonight whether we ought not at some stage to pose to journalists the relative
financial impediments that could result from industry getting it wrong with one of their
products (e.g. Because of EDC activity) as opposed to the green/NGO bodies getting it
wrong with their support for widespread banning (or of a specific compound). You don't
need me to tell you the relative sums. I know we touch on this in our editorial, but it is
indirect and very much 'not in your face'. In terms of trying to get across the relative
differences in accountability/cost, it makes no difference to NGOs if they're wrong but
industry would pay a huge price. So the relative importance of 'getting it right' is
completely different.
 
I shirk from voicing such arguments because it makes you sound like a spokesperson for
industry, but if our editorial does result in the sorts of attacks that we might predict, it
would be one argument to wield in front of a good scientific journalist – ask them to ask
the NGOs how they would make themselves accountable. Indeed, are they accountable in
any way other than to their like-minded supporters? I don't think they are, yet they gets lots
of money form EC.
 
I'd be interested to hear your experience in such issues and whether this is a weapon to
fight with or one that can only self-harm.
 
BW
 
Richard
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Date: Saturday, 11 June 2016 19:00
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Cc: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, Information Services
<x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
Subject: Re: in case you've not seen
 

Dan
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Am 11.06.2016 um 18:55 schrieb "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx
>:
Dan
 
I suggest '....attacked, sometimes with clear ...'
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
Sent from my iPad
On 11 Jun 2016, at 15:46, Daniel Dietrich <Daniel.Dietrich@uni-
konstanz.de> wrote:
 
Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
Von: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Datum: Samstag, 11. Juni 2016 16:21
An: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Cc: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, "Greim,
Helmut" 
, Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, SHARPE Richard

<x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)"
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, 
Betreff: Re: in case you've not seen
 
I agree we should not attribute motive. However in several articles in the
press there has been 'clear disregard' for the evidence, as documented in a
number of emails with the journalists in question. This is more than just a
crusade on their part but a wilful misrepresentation of information
provided in advance of publication. 
 
But we should mix up the views of scientists with whom we disagree from
those of journalists sympathetic to these views. 
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
Sent from my iPad
On 11 Jun 2016, at 14:58, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
Let’s not have “malicious” we are expressing opinions
about the motives of others again. What about “with
apparent disregard for the scientific evidence, which has
been carefully considered by those jealous of their
scientific reputation”. Or something like that
Colin
 
From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:Daniel.Dietrich@uni-
konstanz.de] 
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 2:05 PM
To: Greim, Helmut; Wolfgang Dekant
Cc: Boobis, Alan R; SHARPE Richard; Colin Berry; Heslop-
Harrison, Pat (Prof.); 
Subject: Re: in case you've not seen
 
Dear ALL
Dan

 
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
 
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty
of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
 
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Am 11.06.2016 12:16 schrieb "Greim, Helmut" unter
 
Helmut
 
Am 11.06.2016 09:48, schrieb Wolfgang Dekant:
Dear all, 
wd
Am 10.06.16 um 16:03 schrieb Boobis, Alan R:
Richard
I share your feelings on this.
Even more frustrating is that I responded in detail on
a number of
these issues to 
 and 
 then went ahead

published
contradictory interpretations anyway. An example is
the claim that
what we presented to the Commissioner
contradicted the Berlin
consensus, yet it was exactly what was in para 24 of
that document,
as agreed by all present.
Best wishes,
Alan
Sent from my iPad
On 10 Jun 2016, at 09:45, SHARPE Richard
<x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx > wrote:
Dear fellow grizzleds
It seems increasingly to me, that the 'other camp'
if I can call
them that, not only speak a different language to
any that I
understand, but cannot possibly countenance the
idea that
different scientists may justifiably have different
views, without
this being explained by a devilish conspiracy
(unless there's
something that you other guys are not telling
me!!). It seems to
me that one side is dealing with science the other
with science
fiction, and 
 is clearly an enthusiast
of the fiction
side. Remarkable but utterly depressing to see
science made to
look so foolish and stupid.
Richard
From: <Boobis>, Alan R
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Date: Friday, 10 June 2016 13:21
To: Information Services <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >,
"Greim, Helmut"
, Daniel
Dietrich
<xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Cc: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
"Heslop-Harrison, Pat
(Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Wolfgang
Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, 

Subject: Re: in case you've not seen
And for more detail se
http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/ceo-
edc_addendum-june-5.pdf
[1]
Best wishes,
Alan
-------------------------
FROM: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
SENT: 10 June 2016 12:35
TO: Greim, Helmut; Daniel Dietrich
CC: Colin Berry; Boobis, Alan R; Heslop-Harrison,
Pat (Prof.);
Wolfgang Dekant; 
SUBJECT: Re: in case you've not seen
https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/endocrine-
disruptors-com
mission-breach-eu-law-says-parliament
--
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body,
registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
Department of Toxicology
University of Wuerzburg
Versbacher Str. 9
97078 Wuerzburg
Tel.: 
Fax: 
Links:
------
[1]
http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/ceo-
edc_addendum-june-5.pdf



Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
Von: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Datum: Freitag, 10. Juni 2016 06:25
An: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, "Greim, Helmut" 
, Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Cc: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)"
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, 
Betreff: RE: Editorial on risk and regulation comments
 
I like Alans bit on conflicts and I agree about salt, as I said before .I don’t think it adds much and
will be picked on by some.
Colin
 
From: Boobis, Alan R [mailto:x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx] 
Sent: Thursday, June 9, 2016 10:07 PM
To: Greim, Helmut; Daniel Dietrich
Cc: SHARPE Richard; Colin Berry; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.); Wolfgang Dekant; 
Subject: Re: Editorial on risk and regulation comments
 
Dan
 
Building on what has gone before, I am providing some suggestions for the text.  In
particular, I have expanded slightly the section on conflict of interest.
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
 
From: Greim, Helmut 

Sent: 09 June 2016 13:23
To: Daniel Dietrich
Cc: Boobis, Alan R; SHARPE Richard; Colin Berry; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.); Wolfgang Dekant;
Subject: Re: Editorial on risk and regulation comments
 
Dear all,
 
 
 
Helmut
Am 09.06.2016 13:57, schrieb Daniel Dietrich:
> Dear Alan (and others)

 
 
> Dan
> Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
> Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology,
> Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz

> Universitätsstrasse. 10
> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany

> Telephone:      
>                 
> Portable-Phone: 
> Fax:            
> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de







> Am 09.06.16 13:16 schrieb "Boobis, Alan R" unter 
> <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >:

>> Dan
>> 

>> I am 
 but will send comments by end of tomorrow at 
>> latest.
>> 
>> Best wishes,
>> 
>> Alan
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>>> On 9 Jun 2016, at 07:13, Daniel Dietrich
>>> <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi Richard
>>> 
 
 
>>> Best
>>> Dan
>>> Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
>>> Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology,
>>> Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
>>> 
>>> Universitätsstrasse. 10
>>> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
>>> 
>>> Telephone:      
>>>                
>>> Portable-Phone: 
>>> Fax:            
>>> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am 09.06.16 13:06 schrieb "SHARPE Richard" unter <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >:
>>> 
>>>> Hi Dan and Co
>>>> 
>>>> I have to admit that there were a few things in the editorial draft
>>>> that
>>>> came around that I would not like to sign my name to.
>>>> I think it was just too dogmatic and dismissive, especially on the 
>>>> ED
>>>> side, and I do not think this would serve us well. I know that Dan
>>>> wants



>>>>> Portable-Phone: 
>>>>> Fax:                   
>>>>> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>>>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Am 08.06.2016 15:18 schrieb "Colin Berry" unter
>>>>> <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Daniel,
>>>>>>    Another go
>>>>>>    I don't go for " accusation"- it's really the" arousal of
>>>>>> suspicion"
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> I think it appears pejorative as it is now. We want to argue for
>>>>>> science,
>>>>>> not opinion
>>>>>> For the same reason, I do not care for "denunciation" later on 
>>>>>> which
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> why I used colour  - what is happening is a malign influence on 
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> quality of debate.
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Colin.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx ]
>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2016 11:02 AM
>>>>>> To: Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.); Wolfgang Dekant; Colin Berry;
>>>>>> SHARPE
>>>>>> Richard; 'Boobis, Alan R'; Greim, Helmut; 
>>>>>> Subject: Re: Editorial on risk and regulation comments
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Dear Colin, Wolfgang, Pat, Helmut, Jan, Alan and Richard 
 
 
 
 Dan
>>>>>> 
 

 Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of 
>>>>>> Biology,
>>>>>> University of Konstanz P.O. Box 622 Universitätsstrasse 10
>>>>>> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Telephone:      
>>>>>>                          

>>>>>> Secretary)
>>>>>> Portable-Phone: 
>>>>>> Fax:                   
>>>>>> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>>>>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Am 08.06.2016 09:28 schrieb "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" unter
>>>>>> <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>> 
 
 
 
.
>>>>>>> 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Pat.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Pat Heslop-Harrison.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Professor J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison
>>>>>>> Department of Genetics
>>>>>>> University of Leicester
>>>>>>> Leicester LE1 7RH UK
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> E-mail: xxxx@xx.xx.xx    
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Annals of Botany blog: www.AoBBlog.com
>>>>>>> Websites: www.molcyt.com 
 Chief Editor,
>>>>>>> Annals of

>>>>>>> Botany: www.annbot.com
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Phone: 
>>>>>>> Mobile phone: 
>>>>>>> FAX: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>>>> From: Wolfgang Dekant [xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx ]
>>>>>>> Sent: 08 June 2016 08:00
>>>>>>> To: Colin Berry; Daniel Dietrich; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.);
>>>>>>> SHARPE
>>>>>>> Richard; 'Boobis, Alan R'; Greim, Helmut; Jan Hengstler
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Commissioner Andriukaitis statement on glyphosate
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi, 
 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wd
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> wd
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Am 08.06.16 um 08:37 schrieb Colin Berry:
>>>>>>>> Dear Dnaiel,
>>>>>>>>      I hope you do not mind my having a go at this - I enjoyed 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> tavern idea.
>>>>>>>>      There are  a number of changes that are trivial but which I
>>>>>>>> hope increase the pithiness of the commentary . For example , I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> replaced "lack of any" evidence with "no" and so on - in a 
>>>>>>>> tavern
>>>>>>>> (pub) they are usually "regulars" rather than locals in the
>>>>>>>> vernacular. "Medially" does not mean of the media but towards 
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> middle.
>>>>>>>>      But some more important bits. I have commented on standards 
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> proof. Criminal standards are not usually invoked in regulation 
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> don't have to like Godell's mathematics or be a Popperian to 
>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> something in science may be true or false, despite the evidence 
>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>> favour so far.  Introducing the "balance of probabilities" 
>>>>>>>> concept
>>>>>>>> ,
>>>>>>>> as in civil law, means you must consider the weight of evidence 
>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> is what we want. The judicial system have not improved only
>>>>>>>> because of
>>>>>>>> science  so I modified this.
>>>>>>>>      Is there a better example than salt  - or do we need this 
>>>>>>>> bit?
>>>>>>>>      I am concerned , as I have said before, about attributing
>>>>>>>> motives to others, even if we believe the accusations to be 
>>>>>>>> true.
>>>>>>>> SO I
>>>>>>>> would not go on about Monsanto or glyphosate. If you feel it 
>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>> ot
>>>>>>>> be in , can I work on it a bit?
>>>>>>>>      Celeste Condit wrote very well on who is the "public"  and 
>>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>>> appoints themselves to speak for them; I wil hunt our t some 
>>>>>>>> refs
>>>>>>>> which might be useful.
>>>>>>>> Again, apologies for treading on toes - this is meant to help.
>>>>>>>> Best wishes
>>>>>>>> Colin
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Ps Not all public advocacy groups are bad.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx ]
>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 7, 2016 6:28 PM
>>>>>>>> To: Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.); Colin Berry; SHARPE Richard;
>>>>>>>> 'Boobis, Alan R'; Greim, Helmut; Wolfgang Dekant; 
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: Commissioner Andriukaitis statement on glyphosate
>>>>>>>> Importance: High
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Dear all
>>>>>>>> Dan
>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of
>>>>>>>> Biology,
>>>>>>>> University of Konstanz P.O. Box 622 Universitätsstrasse 10
>>>>>>>> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
>>>>>>>> 

>>>>>>>> Telephone:      
>>>>>>>>                            
>>>>>>>> Secretary)
>>>>>>>> Portable-Phone: 
>>>>>>>> Fax:                   
>>>>>>>> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
>>>>>>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Am 05.06.2016 22:42 schrieb "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" unter
>>>>>>>> <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Dear All,
>>>>>>>>> 
 
 
 
 
 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Pat.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Professor J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison Department of Genetics
>>>>>>>>> University of Leicester Leicester LE1 7RH UK
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> E-mail: xxxx@xx.xx.xx    
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Annals of Botany blog: www.AoBBlog.com
>>>>>>>>> Websites: www.molcyt.com 
') Chief Editor,
>>>>>>>>> Annals
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>> Botany: www.annbot.com
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Phone: 

>>>>>>>>> Mobile phone: 
>>>>>>>>> FAX: 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
>>>>>>> Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg Versbacher Str. 
>>>>>>> 9,
>>>>>>> 97078 Wuerzburg, Germany Tel. 
>>>>>>> Fax: 
>>>>>>> Mobil: 
>>>> --
>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
>>> 
>>>

Editorial: 
Al owing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding public trust in science 
experts and in science as a whole 
 
Daniel R. Dietrich, Wolfgang Dekant, Helmut Greim, Pat Henslop-Harrison, Colin Berry, Alan 
Boobis, Jan Hengstler and Richard Sharpe. 
 
 
Imagine we are beamed back into the 12th century and are staying overnight at a 
country tavern. Based on our clothes we are easily identified as foreigners and are 
confronted not only with curiosity but also hostility from the tavern regulars. In the middle 
of the night we are roughly wakened by the owner and some of his men and directly 
accused of having stolen from one of the regulars after first poisoning him.  Despite  our 
protests and the lack  of any reasonable proof we are accused  of being thieves and 
murderers and are subjected to trial by ordeal to prove our innocence. 
 
The trial takes the form of having our hands and feet tied and being thrown into the 
river; if we sink and drown we are obviously guilty, however if we float God has recognized 
our innocence and let us live (judicium Dei). To a scientist, it seems likely we would drown. 
 
Thankfully, over the past 800 years the development of the judicial system has 
brought us to the point where an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. 
Whether the context is Criminal, where a “beyond reasonable doubt” standard of proof is 
required, or Civil, where the “balance of probability” is the standard, the burden of proof 
lies with the accusing party. 
 
With us, in the tavern it would be necessary for the accuser (or his legal 
representative) to prove, beyond reasonable doubt in this case, that we had poisoned the 
man and stolen the goods from him. In practice, the onus of the demonstration of proof on 
the accuser is not restricted to criminal cases but applies to many  legal procedures in 
democracies. 
 
Unfortunately Europe, in the application of its legislation relating to chemicals, is in 
danger of falling back into the medieval approach. The most recent example is the advocacy 
group-  {Action, 2016 #45}, media-  and NGO-  {Europe, 2016 #46}  driven move to  have 
glyphosate banned, despite solid evidence and multiple expert assessments {FAO/WHO, 
2016 #40;Risikobewertung, 2015 #41;Authority, 2015 #42} that this herbicide is without risk 
to consumers and is the herbicide with the least negative environmental and health impact. 
The “public” is being misled by pseudoscientists to believe that the compound is highly 
dangerous to humans and the environment, a claim that runs counter to the evidence and 
to expert (critical) assessment of that evidence. The media are rife with quotes from poorly 
informed and often scientifically less well-informed politicians and others who had analysed 
their water, urine, beer, and vegetables and found trace amounts of glyphosate 
{Risikobewertung, 2013 #47},  several orders of magnitude  below those that would be 
associated with any harm. 
In a similarly misleading vein, there have been seemingly endless discussions about 
“endocrine disrupters” and their postulated human health effects, based on association 
studies. For these to be causal, they require us to accept that extremely low-level exposures 
cause effects in humans, whereas most of the experimental data indicate such exposures 
are without effect. Most recently, the debate on “endocrine disruptors” has shifted focus to 
the concept that doses of these compounds below their ‘no-observed-effect level’ (in 
animal and in vitro studies) can cause adverse effects (so-called non-monotonic dose-

response curves) {News, 2016 #44}, even though the evidence that endocrine systems can 
be perturbed in this way just does not exist; indeed, there is ample human data on 
abnormally low hormone exposures that tell us this is not how such systems work. However, 
this detailed evidence is being ignored and the most prominent proponents of endocrine 
disruption-mediated human health effects are now using this to argue that hazard 
identification alone is necessary for regulatory purposes {News, 2016 #44}. However, hazard 
characterization, including potency evaluation, and exposure assessment are the principles 
on which the protection of humans from adverse environmental chemical effects is 
undertaken, and has proved to be very effective. This is also the approach recommended for 
endocrine disrupters {Solecki, 2016 #54}. This is a logical path that demands detailed 
evidence gathering and weighing of the science that then forms the basis of the information 
on which the legal process is based. Do we want to throw this trusted and tried process 
away?  Relying on hazard identification alone relieves the “accusing party” of the burden of 
proof (i.e. obtaining the evidence) and al ows for endless new al egations of potential effects 
on human health, for which evidence is not required – it is simply assumed. We don’t think 
that any of us would like our doctors to use similar approaches for looking after our health; 
no, doctors want evidence of what is wrong so that they can target it specifical y to restore 
normal health. What about the wider implications of a hazard-based approach? Will we ban 
cars because they are clearly hazardous, or sugar because it can be hazardous to human 
health? In this regard, the putative hazard has now changed; now endocrine disrupters are 
being advocated as a prime cause for obesity and type II diabetes {Legler, 2015 #15}. How 
credible is this? We know that obesity and type II diabetes  can often be corrected by 
reducing appetite, food intake and additional exercise, difficult though this may be, but 
what evidence is there that reducing exposure to so-called endocrine-disrupting ‘obesogens’ 
can reduce the incidences of obesity and type II diabetes? There is no such evidence, yet we 
are asked to accept that ‘obesogens’  are an important human health risk. Like medieval 
justice, the accusing party never faces the consequences of their accusations or al egations. 
Any damages incurred, whether  these be to human health through unintended 
consequences, society or the economy, are common good and not the responsibility of the 
accusing party. 
These trends are testimony to the apparent movement to overturn the use of 
evidence-based risk assessment in regulation. Further, they undermine the concept of 
burden of proof, central to our judicial systems, developed over the past centuries. Indeed, 
arguably, undue emphasis on hazard identification alone has already found its way,  into 
some EU chemicals legislation, ignoring more informative weight of evidence and risk 
assessment approaches, based on sound science, that have served society wel  over the 
years. Indeed, it is not merely chemical risk assessment that is currently at stake, it is 
science as a whole. Reports of the lack of reproducibility of published scientific findings 
{Baker, 2016 #51} and public disagreement among scientists (and pseudoscientists) on the 
dangers of compounds, despite good evidence to the contrary, erodes public trust in science 
and scientist as a whole – few without scientific training realize that science progresses by 
the detection of, and subsequent elimination of, errors. Perhaps equal y important, failure 
of decision makers to recognise this leads to unnecessarily restrictive and potentially 
damaging regulation. 
 
Arguments such as those we voice above are now routinely attacked on the basis 
that ‘this is what the chemical industry wants, so these authors must be speaking on behalf 

of that industry’  {Garwood, 2014 #7;Horel, 2016 #52;Horel, 2013 #5};  {Garwood, 2014 
#7;Horel, 2016 #52;Horel, 2013 #5}. Tthis is not the case.  But such unwarranted accusations 
of conflicts of interest in the absence of robust scientific evidence to support their 
assertions {Slama, 2016 #48;Grandjean, 2013 #6}, have become the mode du jour in such 
disputes. In some cases, this has resulted in conflict of interest policies that could lead to an 
overal  lack of scientific balance among the group of experts considered not to be thus 
conflicted. A number of NGO’s have an interest in maintaining public concerns about 
specific issues, and indeed may rely on such concerns for charitable donations. Hence, there 
is a strong motivation to disregard data that contradicts a precautionary point of view. 
Regrettably, some scientists appear to put the need to obtain research funding above the 
objective appraisal of the evidence. Unlike potential financial bias, these possible conflicts of 
interest {Dietrich, 2016 #53} are rarely considered in such debates. But these attitudes can 
distort opinions provided to organisations such as EFSA, WHO, EPA and others. The 
consequence is that scientific argument and weight of evidence brought forth that might 
disagree with the initial allegation or accusation can be undermined. This process damages 
the credibility of governmental organizations and the well-developed processes that are the 
very foundations of our society and our wel -being. For sure, the chemical industry has every 
interest in protecting its products and profits, and wil  lobby to this effect. To ensure 
longevity of their products and to avoid litigation, industry is as interested in an evidence-
based approach to risk assessment as we are, and collecting the evidence is a huge and 
expensive task that industry has to undertake to justify the safety of its products. Is it 
sensible to say No to such evidence and instead to assume that if a chemical is hazardous it 
should be banned, irrespective of how much we, the public, are exposed to? In essence, we 
would be saying that an evidence-based approach is not as good as a presumptive approach 
based on no evidence. This is to throw away scientific principles and good practice and to 
replace it with something akin to witchcraft. 
 
It is time to end the influence of pseudoscience and pseudoscientists, including some 
self-appointed public advocacy groups, on European legislation. We advocate this not 
because of what the chemical industry may want or not want, but because it is the most 
credible, scientifically-sound and societally-beneficial solution, utilising well-defined and 
transparent processes of evidence gathering, weighing and risk assessment that should be 
at the core of decisions that support all legal procedures. This is what has been developed, 
tried and tested in Europe over the years and is demonstrably protective of human health. 
 
References: 
 







Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 12:22:27 +0100
Subject: Re: reproducibility.......or not
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        "'Boobis, Alan R'" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        "Greim, Helmut" 
,
        Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        
        
        
        
        Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
    >I’m sure we can all identify with this.
   





NEWS FEATURE
a replication study. When work does not reproduce, researchers  people mentioned this strategy. One who did was Hanne Watkins, a 
often assume there is a perfectly valid (and probably boring) reason.  graduate student studying moral decision-making at the University 
What’s more, incentives to publish positive replications are low and  of Melbourne in Australia. Going back to her original questions after 
journals can be reluctant to publish negative findings. In fact, several  col ecting data, she says, kept her from going down a rabbit hole. And 
respondents who had published a failed replication said that editors  the process, although time consuming, was no more arduous than 
and reviewers demanded that they play down comparisons with the  getting ethical approval or formatting survey questions. “If it’s built 
original study. 
in right from the start,” she says, “it’s just part of the routine of doing 
Nevertheless, 24% said that they had been able to publish a success- a study.”
ful replication and 13% had published a failed replication. Acceptance 
was more common than persistent rejection: only 12% reported being  THE CAUSE
unable to publish successful attempts to reproduce others’ work; 10%  The survey asked scientists what led to problems in reproducibility. 
reported being unable to publish unsuccessful attempts.
More than 60% of respondents said that each of two factors — pressure 
Survey respondent Abraham Al-Ahmad at the Texas Tech University  to publish and selective reporting — always or often contributed. More 
Health Sciences Center in Amaril o expected a “cold and dry rejection”  than half pointed to insufficient replication in the lab, poor oversight 
when he submitted a manuscript explaining 
or low statistical power. A smaller propor-
why a stem-cell technique had stopped work-
tion pointed to obstacles such as variability in 
ing in his hands. He was pleasantly surprised 
reagents or the use of specialized techniques 
when the paper was accepted3. The reason, he 
that are difficult to repeat.
“REPRODUCIBILITY 
thinks, is because it offered a workaround for 
But all these factors are exacerbated 
the problem.
by common forces, says Judith Kimble, a 
Others place the ability to publish replica-
developmental biologist at the University of 
IS LIKE BRUSHING 
tion attempts down to a combination of luck, 
Wisconsin–Madison: competition for grants 
persistence and editors’ inclinations. Survey 
and positions, and a growing burden of 
respondent Michael Adams, a drug-develop-
bureaucracy that takes away from time spent 
YOUR TEETH. ONCE 
ment consultant, says that work showing severe 
doing and designing research. “Everyone is 
flaws in an animal model of diabetes has been 
stretched thinner these days,” she says. And 
rejected six times, in part because it does not 
the cost extends beyond any particular research 
YOU LEARN IT, IT 
reveal a new drug target. By contrast, he says, 
project. If graduate students train in labs where 
work refuting the efficacy of a compound to 
senior members have little time for their 
treat Chagas disease was quickly accepted4. 
juniors, they may go on to establish their own 
BECOMES A HABIT.” labs without having a model of how training 
THE CORRECTIVE MEASURES
and mentoring should work. “They will go 
One-third of respondents said that their labs had taken concrete steps  off and make it worse,” Kimble says.
to improve reproducibility within the past five years. Rates ranged from 
a high of 41% in medicine to a low of 24% in physics and engineering.  WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Free-text responses suggested that redoing the work or asking someone  Respondents were asked to rate 11 different approaches to improving 
else within a lab to repeat the work is the most common practice. Also  reproducibility in science, and all got ringing endorsements. Nearly 90% 
common are efforts to beef up the documentation and standardization  — more than 1,000 people — ticked “More robust experimental design” 
of experimental methods.
“better statistics” and “better mentorship”. Those ranked higher than 
Any of these can be a major undertaking. A biochemistry graduate  the option of providing incentives (such as funding or credit towards 
student in the United Kingdom, who asked not to be named, says that  tenure) for reproducibility-enhancing practices. But even the lowest-
efforts to reproduce work for her lab’s projects doubles the time and  ranked item — journal checklists — won a whopping 69% endorsement. 
materials used — in addition to the time taken to troubleshoot when 
The survey — which was e-mailed to Nature readers and advertised 
some things invariably don’t work. Although replication does boost  on affiliated websites and social-media outlets as being ‘about reproduc-
confidence in results, she says, the costs mean that she performs checks  ibility’ — probably selected for respondents who are more receptive to 
only for innovative projects or unexpected results.
and aware of concerns about reproducibility. Nevertheless, the results 
Consolidating methods is a project unto itself, says Laura Shankman,  suggest that journals, funders and research institutions that advance 
a postdoc studying smooth muscle cells at the University of Virginia,  policies to address the issue would probably find cooperation, says John 
Charlottesville. After several postdocs and graduate students left her lab  Ioannidis, who studies scientific robustness at Stanford University in 
within a short time, remaining members had trouble getting consist- California. “People would probably welcome such initiatives.” About 80% 
ent results in their experiments. The lab decided to take some time off  of respondents thought that funders and publishers should do more to 
from new questions to repeat published work, and this revealed that lab  improve reproducibility.
protocols had gradual y diverged. She thinks that the lab saved money 
“It’s healthy that people are aware of the issues and open to a range of 
overall by getting synchronized instead of troubleshooting failed experi- straightforward ways to improve them,” says Munafo. And given that 
ments piecemeal, but that it was a long-term investment.
these ideas are being widely discussed, even in mainstream media, tack-
Irakli Loladze, a mathematical biologist at Bryan College of Health  ling the initiative now may be crucial. “If we don’t act on this, then the 
Sciences in Lincoln, Nebraska, estimates that efforts to ensure repro- moment will pass, and people will get tired of being told that they need 
ducibility can increase the time spent on a project by 30%, even for his  to do something.” SEE EDITORIAL P.437
theoretical work. He checks that all steps from raw data to the final fig-
ure can be retraced. But those tasks quickly become just part of the job.  Monya Baker writes and edits for Nature from San Francisco. 
“Reproducibility is like brushing your teeth,” he says. “It is good for you,  Dan Penny aided in creation and analysis of the survey.
but it takes time and effort. Once you learn it, it becomes a habit.”
One of the best-publicized approaches to boosting reproducibility  1.  Open Science Collaboration Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 
(2015).
is pre-registration, where scientists submit hypotheses and plans for  2.  Begley, C. G. & Ellis, L. M. Nature 483, 531–533 (2012).
data analysis to a third party before performing experiments, to prevent  3.  Patel, R. & Alahmad, A. J. Fluids Barriers CNS 13, 6 (2016).
4.  da Silva, C. F. et al. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 57, 5307–5314  
cherry-picking statistical y significant results later. Fewer than a dozen 
(2013).
4 5 4   |   N A T U R E   |   V O L   5 3 3   |   2 6   M A Y   2 0 1 6
© 2 0 1 6 M a c m i l a n P u b l i s h e r s L i m i t e d . A l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







    >>>>> speak
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> both sides (industry and NGOs such as ChemTrust) as to speak to one
    >>>>> only
    >>>>> is to lay oneself open to influence and 
 
    
    
    
 I said that the EDC brigade only speak to each other
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> will
    >>>>> not countenance any data that does not fit with their view. I
    >>>>> specifically
    >>>>> asked 
 'So, do you think that scientific experts should not speak
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> industry - that we should withhold our information and expertise?',
    >>>>> and
    >>>>> 
 
    
    
 So there
    >>>>> we
    >>>>> have it - we will be attacked and pilloried on such grounds.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I think that when this comes back to bite us, we should ask
    >>>>> journalists
    >>>>> the question that I asked 
. And suggest that they ask their
    >>>>> reading
    >>>>> public the same question, couched slightly differently such as ' Do
    >>>>> you
    >>>>> think we would be safer if the chemical/other industry regularly
    >>>>> spoke
    >>>>> to
    >>>>> independent scientific experts or would we be safer if these experts
    >>>>> refused to speak to industry to advise them?'Because, in essence
    >>>>> that
    >>>>> is
    >>>>> what this journalist is implying.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> It's a sad day for science when it is not the evidence that calls
    >>>>> the
    >>>>> tune
    >>>>> but conspiracy theorists speaking on behalf of believers.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Sorry to be the bringer of bad news.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Richard
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> --
    >>>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
    >>>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    >>>>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
    >>> Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg
    >>> Versbacher Str. 9, 97078 Wuerzburg, Germany
    >>> Tel. 
    >>> Fax: 
    >>> Mobil: 
    >>>
   


 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Monday, 16 May 2016 at 19:06
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx-
wuerzburg.de>, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, Alan R Boobis
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Pat Heslop-Harrison <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: FW: Homeopaths and arsenic-Joe Schwarcz's the Right Chemistry
 
 
 
From: 
Date: 
Monday, 16 May 2016 17:56
To: 
Subject: 
Homeopaths and arsenic-Joe Schwarcz's the Right Chemistry
 
The Right Chemistry:
Adult colouring books
beat homeopathy any
day

J O E   S C H W A R C Z ,   S P E C I A L   T O   T H E   M O N T R E A L   G A Z E T T E
Published on: May 14, 2016 | Last Updated: May 14, 2016 9:58 AM EDT
During a recent talk on the relationship between the body and
the mind, I mentioned the newest anxiety-relieving craze,
colouring books. Aimed at adults, these feature intricate
patterns, making it quite a challenge to stay inside the lines.
The contention is that focusing on the special patterns
distracts the mind from anxiety and stress. Evidence is
sketchy, but millions of colouring books are flying off the
shelves, topping best-seller lists. That in itself says something

about our society.
After my talk, I was approached by a woman who claimed she had something better
than colouring books to relieve anxiety, and slipped a vial full of pills into my hand. She
didn’t seem like a clandestine drug pusher, so I thought I would look down and find
some pills of lorezapam or maybe St. John’s Wort. Such was not the case. The label on
the vial read “Arsenicum album 30C.”
No, she was not trying to poison me. These were homeopathic arsenic pills based on
the curious notion that a substance that in large doses causes certain symptoms can, in
homeopathic potency, repel the same symptoms. Since arsenic poisoning is associated
with anxiety and restlessness, a person suffering such symptoms should find relief in a
homeopathic dose of arsenic. In the bizarre world of homeopathy, potency increases
with greater dilution, and a dose of 30C is said to be extremely potent. Such a pill is
made by sequentially diluting a solution of arsenic 100-fold 30 times and then
impregnating a sugar pill with a drop of the resulting solution. At a dilution of 30C, not
only is there no trace of arsenic left, there isn’t even a water molecule that has ever
encountered any of the original arsenic.
Homeopathy is a scientifically bankrupt practice that was invented more than 200 years
ago by German physician Samuel Hahnemann, who was disenchanted with bloodletting
and purging, common medical procedures at the time. He was a good man who
searched for kinder and gentler treatments, and homeopathy fit that rubric. Since
knowledge of molecules was almost non-existent at the time, Hahnemann could not
have realized that his diluted solutions contained nothing. Actually, the truth is that they
did contain something. A hefty dose of placebo!
Now here is the kicker to this story. Hahnemann was quite accomplished in chemistry
and actually developed the first chemical test for arsenic. In 1787, he found that arsenic
in an unknown sample was converted to an insoluble yellow precipitate of arsenic
trisulfide on treatment with hydrogen sulfide gas. When in 1832 John Bodle in England
was accused of poisoning his grandfather by putting arsenic in his coffee, John Marsh,
a chemist at the Royal Arsenal, was asked to test a sample of the coffee. While he was
able to detect arsenic in the coffee using Hahnemann’s test, the experiment could not
be reproduced to the satisfaction of the jury and Bodle was acquitted. Knowing that he
could not be tried for the same crime again, he later admitted to killing his grandfather.
The confession infuriated Marsh and motivated him to develop a better test for arsenic.
By 1836, he had discovered that treating a sample of body fluid or tissue with zinc and
an acid converted any arsenic to arsine gas, AsH3, which could then be passed through
a flame to yield metallic arsenic and water. The arsenic would then form a silvery-black
deposit on a cold ceramic bowl held in the jet of the flame and the amount of arsenic in
the original sample could be determined by comparing the intensity of the deposit with
that produced with known amounts of arsenic.
The Marsh test received a great deal of publicity in 1840 when Marie LaFarge in France
was accused of murdering her husband by putting arsenic into his food. LaFarge was
known to have bought arsenic from a local chemist, which she claimed was to kill rats
that had infested the house. A maid swore that she has seen her mistress pour a white
powder into her husband’s drink and LaFarge had also sent a cake to her husband, who
was travelling on business just prior to his becoming ill. The dead husband’s family
suspected that LaFarge had poisoned him and somehow got hold of remnants of food
to which she had supposedly added arsenic. The Marsh test revealed the presence of
arsenic in the food and in a sample of egg nog, but when the victim’s body was


exhumed, the investigating chemist was unable to detect arsenic.
To help prove LaFarge’s innocence by corroborating the results of the investigation of
the exhumed body, the defence enlisted Mathieu Orfila, a chemist acknowledged to be
an authority on the Marsh test. Much to the defence’s chagrin, Orfila showed that the
test had been carried out incorrectly and used the Marsh test to conclusively prove the
presence of arsenic in Mr. LaFarge’s exhumed body. Marie LaFarge was found guilty
and sentenced to life in prison. The controversial case captured the imagination of the
public and was closely followed through newspaper accounts, making LeFarge into a
celebrity. It would also go down in the annals of history as the first case in which a
conviction was secured based on direct forensic toxicological evidence. Because of
Orfila’s role in the case, he is often deemed to be the “founder of the science of
toxicology.” The Marsh test became the subject of everyday conversations and even
became a popular demonstration at fairgrounds and in public lectures. This had an
interesting spinoff. Poisonings by arsenic decreased significantly. The existence of a
reliable test served as a deterrent.
As far as claims about relieving anxiety with homeopathic arsenic go, well, they cause
me anxiety. I think I’ll flush those homeopathic tablets down the drain (no worry about
arsenic pollution here) and buy a colouring book.
xxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxx.xx
Joe Schwarcz is director of McGill University’s Office for Science & Society (mcgill.ca/oss). He
hosts The Dr. Joe Show on CJAD Radio 800 AM every Sunday from 3 to 4 p.m.
 
 
 
 

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Tuesday, 10 May 2016 at 10:19
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx-
wuerzburg.de>, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, Alan R Boobis
<x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Pat Heslop-Harrison <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Helmut Greim
Subject: Re: Brussels expenses
 
 
Cheers
 
Richard

 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Saturday, 7 May 2016 at 12:27
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,  Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
Alan R Boobis <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Pat Heslop-Harrison <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Helmut
Greim 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx-
wuerzburg.de>
Subject: Re: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
 
Just a couple of comments/additions, though not sure how helpful they are.
 
1.  I presume the Boston public health grant will have gone to 
 So not all are as crazy and uncaring of scientific principles as others,
speaking of which…..
2. 
 So no wonder these folk
feel empowered, they're being given credibility at the highest possible level.
Rant over
 
Richard
 
From: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Date: Saturday, 7 May 2016 00:57
To: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, Alan R Boobis <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Pat
Heslop-Harrison <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Information Services <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, Helmut
Greim 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx-
wuerzburg.de>
Subject: Fwd: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
 
Dan
Von meinem iPhone gesendet
Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail:

Von: 
Datum: 4. Mai 2016 18:14:13 MESZ
An: "xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx" <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Betreff: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 



 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Saturday, 7 May 2016 at 11:49
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Daniel Dietrich <Daniel.Dietrich@uni-
konstanz.de>, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, Pat Heslop-Harrison
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,  Helmut Greim 
, Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
Subject: Re: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
 
I agree with all of the changes (improvements) made but I think the very  last 3 words can now
be deleted as they're redundant.
 
Best
 
Richard
 
From: <Boobis>, Alan R <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >
Date: Saturday, 7 May 2016 10:11
To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, Information Services
<x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >, Colin Berry 
, Pat Heslop-Harrison
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Helmut Greim 
, Wolfgang Dekant
<xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Subject: RE: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
 
Dan et al
 
I think this strikes a reasonable balance between making the point whilst not being overly
confrontational.  I have only minor suggestions to this version.
 
I suspect that there will be time (and need) for a more aggressive piece when the response is
published!
 
Best wishes,
 
Alan
 
From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx ] 
Sent: 07 May 2016 09:11
To: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >; Colin Berry 
; Boobis, Alan
R <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >; Pat Heslop-Harrison <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >; Helmut Greim
; Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >
Subject: Re: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
Importance: High

 
Dear Richard, 
 
 
Dan
Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, 
Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
P.O. Box 622
Universitätsstrasse 10
D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
Telephone:      
                           
Portable-Phone: 
Fax:                   
email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
 
Von: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx >
Datum: Samstag, 7. Mai 2016 08:40
An: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx >, Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
Alan R Boobis <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Pat Heslop-Harrison <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx >, Helmut
Greim 
, Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxx-
wuerzburg.de>
Betreff: Re: US Oak Foundation funding on ED
 
OK guys this is how my weekend started!
 
I've taken the latest version and dis-assembled it and tried to make it clearer why we are making this
statement by explicitly showing what the dark side is proposing and why it is wrong. I'm sure it can be
improved upon, so over to you for this. I turned off track changes when writing this because it was so
difficult to read otherwise but if I know my laptop, the track changes will mysteriously reappear when I

attach the document.
 
One point: I've tried to really hammer home the clinical endocrinology aspect because (a) this is familiar
to the commissioner, and (b) it ultimately has the biggest public impact because endocrine disorders
are very common (maybe we should mention menopause, the commonest of the lot) and anything that
'doctors' do immediately elevates it to 'fact' status, whether or not that is accurate!
 
Enjoy your weekend – and I hope I didn't just make it worse.
 
Richard
 
 
 
  
 
 
 

From:
SHARPE Richard
To:
NOBLE Ann-Marie
Subject:
FW: EDCs
Date:
17 July 2018 10:12:36
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 13:27:39 +0100
Subject: Re: EDCs
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        "Greim, Helmut" 
        "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
         
 
        
CC: "xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx" <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        
        
    I just re-read my e-mail and just wanted to say to Dan that I did not
    intend any criticism of him. Getting words down on paper is the most
    important first task as then we have a bone to chew upon, so I should have
    acknowledged his hard work in taking the first step for us all.
   
    Richard
   
    On 06/05/2016 13:10, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
   
    >Richard
    >
    >It certainly resonates with me!
    >
    >I can sympathise with Dan's concerns following the way in which the
    >outcome of the Berlin meeting is being portrayed.  But I fully agree with
    >you that if we resort to the same tactics we will not achieve anything.
    >Our arguments must be evidence-based, level-headed and suitably
    >circumspect.
    >
    >Best wishes,
    >
    >Alan
    >
    >-----Original Message-----
    >From: SHARPE Richard [mailto:x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx
]
    >Sent: 06 May 2016 13:04
    >To: Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>; Colin Berry
    ><xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>; Greim, Helmut
    >
>; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)
    ><xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>; 
    >
    >Cc: Boobis, Alan R <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>;
    
    
    >Subject: Re: EDCs
    >
    >I¹m not going to get near this today, but based on a quick read through,
    >it will need considerable Œtoning down¹. I don¹t think we should be

    >making sweeping interpretational statements (e.g. Absolutely no evidence
    >that EDCs Š..), as then we are venturing into the same emotional
    >territory as occupied by our counterparts. Instead, I think we need to
    >give it a measured tone with emphasis solely on the differences between
    >hazard and risk and on the critical importance of using evidence rather
    >than presumption to guide risk evaluation and regulatory decision-making.
    >It also needs to seek an advantage over the other side by pointing out
    >that scaremongering and use of emotional arguments should have no place
    >in any assessment nor should beliefs - only robust evidence. I also think
    >it needs to mention that the goal of protecting the public from harmful
    >exposures will never be achieved by basing it on simple
    >characterisation/labelling, but only by obtaining sufficiently detailed
    >evidence to show how and when a risk may be posed and ten managed
    >(including banning a chemical if this is what the evidence supports).
    >
    >Sorry to just throw this into an e-mial for now, but I thought it might
    >help to voice my knee jerk reaction, in case it resonates with anyone
    >else.
    >
    >Best wishes
    >
    >Richard
    >
    >On 06/05/2016 11:30, "Daniel Dietrich" <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>Dear 
and Dear colleagues.
    
    
    
    
    
    >>Dan
    >>Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
    >>
    >>Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of Biology,
    >>University of Konstanz P.O. Box 622 Universitätsstrasse 10
    >>D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
    >>
    >>Telephone:      
    
                          
    >>Portable-Phone: 
    >>Fax:                   
    >>email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
    >>http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>Am 06.05.2016 08:33 schrieb "Colin Berry" unter
    >>
    >>
    >>>Daniel,
    >>>I can make sure it goes to Sense about Science and The Science Media
    >>>Centre and 
 at SAS and 
will mail it out
    >>>to their media contacts if I ask them, I am sure. I am on the Advisory
    >>>Boards of both.
    >>>Colin

    >>>
    >>>-----Original Message-----
    >>>From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
]
    >>>Sent: Friday, May 6, 2016 7:05 AM
    >>>To: Greim, Helmut; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)
    >>>Cc: Boobis, Alan R; xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx;
    >>>Colin Berry; 
    >>>Subject: Re: EDCs
    >>>
    
    
    
    >>>Dan
    >>>Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
    >>>
    >>>Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of Biology,
    >>>University of Konstanz P.O. Box 622 Universitätsstrasse 10
    >>>D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
    >>>
    >>>Telephone:      
    >>>                           
    >>>Portable-Phone: 
    >>>Fax:                   
    >>>email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
    >>>http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Am 05.05.2016 21:13 schrieb "Greim, Helmut" unter
    >>><xxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx>:
    >>>
    
    
    
    
    >>>>helmut
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Am 05.05.2016 19:39, schrieb Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.):
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Pat
    >>>>>
    >>>>>  Professor J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison  Department of Genetics
    >>>>> University of Leicester  Leicester LE1 7RH UK
    >>>>>
    >>>>>  E-mail: xxxx@xx.xx.xx 
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Annals of Botany blog: www.AoBBlog.com [1]
    >>>>> Websites: www.molcyt.com [2] 
 Chief Editor,
    >>>>> Annals of Botany: www.annbot.com [3]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>  Phone: 

    >>>>>  Mobile phone: 
    >>>>>  FAX: 
    >>>>>
    >>>>> -------------------------
    >>>>>
    >>>>> FROM: Boobis, Alan R [x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx]
    >>>>> SENT: 05 May 2016 18:26
    >>>>> TO: Helmut Greim; xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx;
    >>>>> xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.);
    >>>>> x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx; xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
    >>>>> CC: 
    >>>>> SUBJECT: EDCs
    >>>>>
    >>>>>  Dear all
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The comments at
    >>>>>
    >>>>>https://chemicalwatch.com/47135/official-edcs-statement-confirms-pot
    >>>>>en
    >>>>>cy-
    >>>>>not-relevant-for-id
    >>>>> [4] emphasize the need for an some commentary to explain the
    >>>>>aspects of the statement emphasizing that identification is not the
    >>>>>assessment of heath effects in exposed populations.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best wishes,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Alan
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Links:
    >>>>> ------
    >>>>> [1] http://www.AoBBlog.com
    >>>>> [2] http://www.molcyt.com
    >>>>> [3] http://www.annbot.com
    >>>>> [4]
    >>>>>
    >>>>>https://chemicalwatch.com/47135/official-edcs-statement-confirms-pot
    >>>>>en
    >>>>>cy-
    >>>>>not-relevant-for-id
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
    >--
    >The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
    >with registration number SC005336.
    >
   
   

From:
SHARPE Richard
To:
NOBLE Ann-Marie
Subject:
FW: Homeopathy
Date:
17 July 2018 10:11:10
Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 17:33:55 +0100
Subject: FW: Homeopathy
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
                "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
                "Greim, Helmut" 
,
                "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
 
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
Date: Tuesday, 3 May 2016 at 17:33
To: Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
"Greim, Helmut" 
, "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)"
<xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
Subject: FW: Homeopathy
 
For your entertainment! http://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0
 
From: Information Services <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx
>
Date: Monday, 4 April 2016 20:23
To: 
Subject: Re: Homeopathy
 
That is brilliant – captures the absurdity by using humour. Great bit of script writing, especially the
ending.
Cheers from 
!
 
Richard
 
From: 
Reply-To: 
Date: 
Monday, 4 April 2016 13:50
To: Information Services <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx
>, 
Subject: Homeopathy
 
http://youtu.be/HMGIbOGu8q0
 
 
 

Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 17:27:09 +0100
Subject: Re: meeting with Commissioner May 3
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
CC: "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        Daniel Dietrich <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        Wolfgang Dekant <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        "Greim, Helmut" 
,
        
    Thanks Aalan.
    OK I'll aim to meet up with you all at midi.
    My mobile number is 
 in case any changes.
    Cheers
   
    Richard
   
    On 28/04/2016 15:49, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
   
    >Richard
    >
    >We (Colin, Pat and I) are due in at 11:05.
    >
    >Best wishes,
    >
    >Alan
    >
    >Sent from my iPhone
    >
    >> On 28 Apr 2016, at 14:47, SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx> wrote:
    >>
    >> Meeting up at Midi would be no problem for me, its just 1 more stop down
    >> the line. So let me know your arrival time.
    >> BW
    >>
    >> Richard
    >>
    >>> On 28/04/2016 14:31, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Richard
    >>>
    >>> The Eurostar gets into Midi station.
    >>>
    >>> Best wishes,
    >>>
    >>> Alan
    >>>
    >>> Sent from my iPhone
    >>>
    >>>> On 28 Apr 2016, at 14:29, SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Thank you all for your speedy corrections/additions, which have dealt

    >>>> with
    >>>> everything that I had thought might need changing.
    >>>> I think this is about as good and concise as we can aim for whilst
    >>>>still
    >>>> making the key points in a cogent and cohesive manner.
    >>>> It will hopefully provide the basis for the commissioner's questions
    >>>>to
    >>>> us, which would be a great outcome.
    >>>>
    >>>> On an organisational point, I'm just wondering about when and how we
    >>>> will
    >>>> meet up at Berlaymont (I presume at the front entrance). Are those
    >>>> arriving by train from UK terminating at Central station? If so, I
    >>>>might
    >>>> be able to meet up as I arrive early at the airport, and can time my
    >>>> trip
    >>>> into Central station accordingly.
    >>>>
    >>>> Best wishes
    >>>>
    >>>> Richard
    >>>>
    >>>>> On 28/04/2016 13:00, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
    >>>>>wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Dear all
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I have added my suggestions to the version edited by others .
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best wishes,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Alan
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ________________________________________
    >>>>> From: Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.) <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
    >>>>> Sent: 28 April 2016 12:03
    >>>>> To: 'Daniel Dietrich'; Colin Berry; Wolfgang Dekant; SHARPE Richard;
    >>>>> Greim, Helmut
    >>>>> Cc: Boobis, Alan R; 
    >>>>> Subject: RE: meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Dear All,
    >>>>>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Pat.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Pat Heslop-Harrison
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Professor J.S. (Pat) Heslop-Harrison
    >>>>> Department of Genetics,
    >>>>> University of Leicester
    >>>>> Leicester LE1 7RH UK
    >>>>> xxxx@xx.xx.xx 
    >>>>> Office: 
 Mobile: 
    >>>>> FAX: 
    >>>>> Web: www.molcyt.com 
    >>>>> Blog: www.AoBBlog.com
    >>>>> Chief Editor, Annals of Botany www.annbot.com
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>>> From: Daniel Dietrich [mailto:xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
]
    >>>>> Sent: 28 April 2016 11:28
    >>>>> To: Colin Berry; Wolfgang Dekant; SHARPE Richard; Greim, Helmut
    >>>>> Cc: Boobis, Alan R; Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)
    >>>>> Subject: Re: meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>>>> Importance: High
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Dear Wolfgang
    
    

    
    
    >>>>> Dan
    >>>>> Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT Professor of Human and
    >>>>> Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Universitätsstrasse. 10
    >>>>> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Telephone:      
    >>>>>              
    >>>>> Portable-Phone: 
    >>>>> Fax:            
    >>>>> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
    >>>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Am 28.04.16 12:16 schrieb "Colin Berry" unter
    >>>>> 
:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Wolfgang,
    >>>>>> I have made changes largely as a "precis" but you may disagree with
    >>>>>> "identification" instead of "characterisation" in the first line.
    >>>>>> However, I don't think the general rule is to characterise - that
    >>>>>> might
    >>>>>> be better.
    >>>>>> Ignore anything you dislike
    >>>>>> Regards
    >>>>>> Colin
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>>>> From: Wolfgang Dekant [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
]
    >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 10:37 AM
    >>>>>> To: Daniel Dietrich; Colin Berry; SHARPE Richard; Greim, Helmut
    >>>>>> Cc: Boobis, Alan R; xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
    >>>>>> Subject: Re: meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Dear all, 
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> wd
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Am 27.04.16 um 21:17 schrieb Daniel Dietrich:
    >>>>>>> Dear Wolfgang And Richard:
    
    
    
    >>>>>>> Dan
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Professor of Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of

    >>>>>>>Biology,
    >>>>>>> University of Konstanz P.O. Box 622 Universitätsstrasse 10
    >>>>>>> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Telephone:      
    >>>>>>>                           
    >>>>>>> Secretary)
    >>>>>>> Portable-Phone: 
    >>>>>>> Fax:                   
    >>>>>>> email:                xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
    >>>>>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Am 27.04.2016 17:03 schrieb "Colin Berry" unter
    >>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I think that is super, Richard (and clinical, which will matter)
    >>>>>>>> Colin Berry
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>>>>>> From: SHARPE Richard [mailto:x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx
]
    >>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, April 27, 2016 3:59 PM
    >>>>>>>> To: Wolfgang Dekant; Greim, Helmut; Colin Berry
    >>>>>>>> Cc: Boobis, Alan R; Daniel Dietrich; xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx;
    >>>>>>>> 
    >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Just to add a brief resume that might be included in the 1-page
    >>>>>>>> briefing for the commissioner.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> So-called 'low dose/non-monotonic dose-response curves' for 1 or 2
    >>>>>>>> endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) in model systems has been a
    >>>>>>>> key
    >>>>>>>> argument for adopting a hazard-only based assessment process. It
    >>>>>>>>is
    >>>>>>>> now widely stated that non-monotonicity is a basic principle of
    >>>>>>>> endocrine systems, whereas the opposite is actually the case. The
    >>>>>>>> intrinsic homeostatic basis/regulation of all major endocrine
    >>>>>>>> systems
    >>>>>>>> would not operate if there was non-monotonicity. When this system
    >>>>>>>> fails, you do not see the same disease at subnormal (low) and
    >>>>>>>> supranormal (high) hormone levels but very different
    >>>>>>>> diseases/symptoms with hormone deficiency versus hormone excess
    >>>>>>>> (e.g.
    >>>>>>>> Addisons v Cushings) that are treated successfully by
    >>>>>>>> therapeutically  returning hormone levels to normal. The whole of
    >>>>>>>> clinical  endocrinology is built around this and is based on
    >>>>>>>>decades
    >>>>>>>> of experience and evidence.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Homeostatic regulation may not apply to the hormonal regulation of
    >>>>>>>> specific programming/organisational events (e.g. role of androgens
    >>>>>>>> in fetal masculinisation) but the evidence we have from animal
    >>>>>>>> studies is that only very high doses of EDCs (orders of magnitude
    >>>>>>>> higher than human



    >>>>>>>>>>>    Daniel suggested  I forward this, which I sent to him and
    >>>>>>>>>>> Helmut earlier.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Colin Berry
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Daniel,
    >>>>>>>>>>>               I agree about mixtures. The point you make is a
    >>>>>>>>>>> difficult one but even if it is thought reasonable to use
    >>>>>>>>>>>hazard
    >>>>>>>>>>> Identification as a basis for intervention (pace the declared
    >>>>>>>>>>> intention of IARC in their pre-amble) there must be data to
    >>>>>>>>>>> support any assertion, or almost anything can be used to object
    >>>>>>>>>>> to
    >>>>>>>>>>> any process involving chemicals (the oxygen, glucose and sodium
    >>>>>>>>>>> chloride are all deadly kind of nonsense.)
    >>>>>>>>>>>               Perhaps something like this should go in what we
    >>>>>>>>>>> send.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "In identifying any agent which has the potential to do harm,
    >>>>>>>>>>> some mechanism of injury should be proposed, some target for
    >>>>>>>>>>> disturbance should be identified, some likelihood of
    >>>>>>>>>>>significant
    >>>>>>>>>>> exposure characterised and some quantitative consideration as
    >>>>>>>>>>>to
    >>>>>>>>>>> the numbers of those exposed should be made.  This will enable
    >>>>>>>>>>> the potential benefit of the intervention to be assessed
    >>>>>>>>>>>against
    >>>>>>>>>>> its potential for harm  and will enable the value of  a
    >>>>>>>>>>> regulatory intervention to be measured."
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> This is very speculative and the result of an on-the-spot
    >>>>>>>>>>> thought.
    >>>>>>>>>>> Regards
    >>>>>>>>>>> Colin
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>>>>>>>>> From: Wolfgang Dekant [mailto:xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
]
    >>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 6:55 AM
    >>>>>>>>>>> To: Greim, Helmut; Boobis, Alan R
    >>>>>>>>>>> Cc: xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; SHARPE Richard; Daniel
    >>>>>>>>>>> Dietrich; Colin Berry; xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
    >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Times article
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>>>>>>> wd
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 25.04.16 um 21:10 schrieb Greim, Helmut:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Helmut
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 25.04.2016 17:30, schrieb Boobis, Alan R:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Richard
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> I agree with these points.  We need to consider the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>alternative
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> viewpoints and what is it we would like to realistically
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> achieve.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> In my view we do need to emphasize the importance of risk
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> assessment, as opposed to hazard identification for a range
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> socio-economic reasons (which we can elaborate); and the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>danger
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of considering risk in isolation, without considering
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> alternative risks or benefits.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 25 April 2016 14:03
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Daniel Dietrich; Greim, Helmut; Wolfgang Dekant
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: Colin Berry; Boobis, Alan R; xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Times article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear All
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Whilst I agree in principle with what is written in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested text for the commissioner, I'm not sure that a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> sweeping dismissal of the 'views of the other side' on the

    >>>>>>>>>>>>> basis
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of longstanding proven practice is necessarily the most
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> convincing approach. It can be seen as failing to move with
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> times, sticking ones head in the sand etc etc. We have to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>think
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of what the 'opposition thinkers' would present to the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> commissioner, and whilst we can push some of that away on the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> lack of convincing evidence, it is by no means as certain as
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> implied....if we are basing it on available evidence. The
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>human
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> epidemiological data is, in general, unconvincing but it is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> constrained by all manner of difficulties and whilst many of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> animal experimental studies are not relevant, not well enough
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> done or are confounded, based on the evidence I could not
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> simply
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> sweep it all aside. In particular, the mixtures issue is an
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect that I find difficult to dismiss and in general the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> studies on which it is based have been top quality.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> I still don't see that it requires a different set of rules
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> its evaluation (i.e. I am not a believer in the 'low dose,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> inverted U' thinking that is increasingly bandied around),
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>but
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> it unquestionably challenges the current risk assessment
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> process.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> There is not a mention of this in the proposed commissioner
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> text, which I don't think is wise. To me, the wise approach
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> to acknowledge that these new developments need to be
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>factored
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> into the risk assessment and regulatory process (which will
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> take
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> some doing), but what would be sheer lunacy is to abandon
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>what
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> has been proven to work so well up until now. None of us can
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> see
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> that it will not continue to be the frontline, 'proven in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> practice', optimal way to protect the public, but it has to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> take
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> account of the new developments that are evidence-based. So
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> there has to be some middle path.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Whilst I'm on my soapbox, I also have never liked the idea of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> using as a defence the argument about 'natural chemicals'
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>with
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> EDC activity being present in higher amounts than the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> contaminants.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Its a weak defence that is easily attacked from several
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>angles.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Far better to rely on the proven principles of toxicology
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>etc.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> I offer these gut reactions of mine as fuel for our thoughts
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> and discussions and will be happy to have them shot down in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> flames!
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> All the best
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>



    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dan
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Daniel Dietrich, Ph.D., FATS, ERT Professor of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Human and Environmental Toxicology, Faculty of Biology,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Konstanz
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Universitätsstrasse. 10
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D-78457 Konstanz, Germany
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Telephone:      
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                
    
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Portable-Phone: 
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fax:            
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> email: xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.umwelttoxikologie.uni-konstanz.de
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 25.04.16 10:42 schrieb "Greim, Helmut" unter
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <xxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx>:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helmut
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.2016 17:44, schrieb Colin Berry:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we send them papers in advance? This from Matt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Ridley
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is good and my comments about hazard based systems and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reproducibility was focussed on IARC - do we send this
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kind of thing?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards to all
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Colin
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Boobis, Alan R [mailto:x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx
]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 3:05 PM
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Greim, Helmut; xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx;
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx;
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx; Colin Berry
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: The Times article

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Helmut
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I though this was a very helpful article in that it
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identified many of the issues that concern us and would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be well worth discussing with the commissioner.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best wishes,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A;an
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ________________________________________
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Greim, Helmut <xxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: 24 April 2016 14:58
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Boobis, Alan R; xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx;
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx;
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx; 
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: The Times article
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dear all,
    
    
    
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Helmut
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop misusing science to scare the world By Matt Ridley
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> De  Niro's intervention in the MMR vaccine row
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>highlights
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> how  the cherry-picking of data is warping our
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding  Science, humanity's greatest
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>intellectual
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> achievement, has  always been vulnerable to infection
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pseudoscience,  which pretends to use the methods of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science, but actually  subverts them in pursuit of an
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obsession. Instead of  evidence-based policymaking,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pseudoscience specialises in  policy-based evidence
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> making.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today, this infection is spreading.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Two egregious examples show just how easy it is to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subvert  the scientific process. The campaign by Andrew
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wakefield  against the MMR vaccine, recently boosted by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Robert De  Niro's support, is pseudoscience.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So is the campaign against glyphosate ("Roundup")
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weedkiller, which has now resulted in the European
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> parliament recommending a ban on its use by gardeners.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A large dossier claiming to find evidence that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>glyphosate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is "probably carcinogenic" was published last year by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC),
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>part
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the World Health Organisation.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> could be more scientifically respectable?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet the document depends heavily on the work of an
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> activist employed by a pressure group called the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Environmental Defense
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fund:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Christopher
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Portier, whose conflict of interest the IARC twice

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> omitted  to disclose.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Portier chaired the committee that proposed a study on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glyphosate and then served as technical adviser to the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IARC's glyphosate report team, even though he is not a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> toxicologist.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He has since been campaigning against glyphosate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The IARC study is surely pseudoscience. It relies on a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tiny number of cherry-picked studies, and even these
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support its conclusion.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The evidence that it causes cancer in humans is
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> especially  tenuous, based on three epidemiological
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> studies with  confounding factors and small sample
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>sizes
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "linking" it to  Non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The study
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignored the US  Agricultural Health Study, which has
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>been
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tracking some
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 89,000 farmers and their spouses for 23 years.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The study found "no association between glyphosate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exposure and all cancer incidence or most of the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>specific
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cancer subtypes we evaluated, including NHL . . ."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many other studies found very little cancer risk from
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glyphosate use, but the IARC argued that they included
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> some data generated by industry.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, of course they did, because we rightly demand
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> industry, not the taxpayer, pays for and does the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>safety
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> testing of its products and makes the results public.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IARC appeared to ignore work by the German Federal
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Institute for Risk Assessment, managing the glyphosate
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dossier for the European Commission, which judged
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> glyphosate safe.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did the European Food Safety Authority, whose head
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> accused  the IARC and Portier of bringing in the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Facebook
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> age of  science".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When Portier's role and the IARC's findings were
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>revealed
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by David Zaruk, who blogs under the name the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Risk-Monger,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pressure started coming from many groups to censor his
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science-policy blog.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The publisher EurActiv was forced to shut down Zaruk's
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> entire blog in the week of the European parliament
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>vote.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is how Big Green behaves in Brussels, routinely.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dose for dose, glyphosate is half as toxic as vinegar,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and  one tenth as carcinogenic as caffeine. Not that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coffee's  dangerous
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - but the chemicals in it, like those in virtually any
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vegetable, are dangerous in lab tests at absurdly high
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> concentrations. So is dihydrogen monoxide, for that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matter, if you inhale it, drink it to excess or let its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gaseous form burn your skin (that's H2O, by the way).
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, risk is hazard plus exposure, a point ignored
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IARC.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you routinely put coffee down your throat, you are
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exposing yourself to the infinitesimal hazard caffeine
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents. If you spray a little Roundup on your
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>garden
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> path, you are not even exposing yourself to the more
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitesimal hazard of glyphosate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roundup is probably the safest herbicide ever, with no
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> persistence in the environment. But the Green Blob
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hates
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it for three reasons.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> off-patent and therefore cheap. It was invented by
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Monsanto, a company that had the temerity to make a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contribution to reducing famine and lowering food
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>prices
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through innovation in agriculture. And some genetically
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified crops have been made resistant to it, so that
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they can be weeded after planting by spraying, rather
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tilling the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ground: this no-till farming is demonstrably better for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the environment, by the way.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Under the influence, at least in part of the IARC
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>report,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the European parliament voted last week to advise the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> commission to ban glyphosate immediately for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "non-professionals" - ie gardeners - but allow it for
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seven years for farmers. However, a lie is halfway
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>round
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the world before the truth has got its boots on:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>already
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> retailers worldwide are dropping glyphosate, Waitrose
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Much the same happened with the ban on neonicotinoid
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pesticides, which was pushed through Brussels by a
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tsunami
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of angry emails from greens, in the teeth of clear
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scientific advice that honey bee numbers were
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>increasing
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and that alternative insecticides were worse.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> James Gurney, a microbiologist who blogs on a site
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>called
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the League of Nerds, describes the level of scholarship
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the IARC report as "on a par with Andrew Wakefield of
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MMR/autism fame".
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of Mr Wakefield's claim that the measles,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mumps and rubella
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (MMR) vaccine causes autism, the push-back against
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pseudoscience largely succeeded in this country, though
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not before real harm had been done.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Journalists found that Mr Wakefield had failed to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>declare
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> financing from lawyers preparing to sue vaccine makers
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had taken blood samples at his own children's party;
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> further research failed to replicate his results. His
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paper was retracted and he was struck off the medical
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> register, the General Medical Council calling him

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest and irresponsible. His message is now
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>falling
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fertile ground in the United States, however, where
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> measles epidemics have resumed as a result.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In both these cases, superficial plausibility is lent
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scares by history. Earlier pesticides were more
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dangerous:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copper sulphate (still used as a fungicide by "organic"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> farmers) is toxic; DDT insecticide did wipe out
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>predatory
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> birds; paraquat herbicide was used in suicides. But
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roundup is far, far less dangerous than these.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Likewise, early vaccines did carry risks. In the 1950s
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> polio vaccines, grown in monkey tissue, were
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>contaminated
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with SV40, a virus associated with cancer in monkeys.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children were infected with the virus as a result.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fortunately, SV40 proved neither infectious nor
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> carcinogenic in human beings, but it was a bullet
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>dodged.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today such contamination is impossible.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pseudoscience is bad enough when it infects
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>astrologers,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9/11 truthers and crop-circle makers. But when its
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> symptoms show up in mainstream bodies, such as the
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>World
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Health Organisation, it's time to be worried.
    >>>>>>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
    >>>>>>>>>>> Department of Toxicology
    >>>>>>>>>>> University of Wuerzburg
    >>>>>>>>>>> Versbacher Str. 9
    >>>>>>>>>>> 97078 Wuerzburg
    >>>>>>>>>>> Tel.: 
    >>>>>>>>>>> Fax: 
    >>>>>>>>> --
    >>>>>>>>> Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
    >>>>>>>>> Department of Toxicology
    >>>>>>>>> University of Wuerzburg
    >>>>>>>>> Versbacher Str. 9
    >>>>>>>>> 97078 Wuerzburg
    >>>>>>>>> Tel.: 
    >>>>>>>>> Fax: 
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> --
    >>>>>> Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant
    >>>>>> Department of Toxicology, University of Wuerzburg Versbacher Str. 9,
    >>>>>> 97078 Wuerzburg, Germany Tel. 
    >>>>>> Fax: 
    >>>>>> Mobil: 
    >>>>
    >>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
    >>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    >>
    >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
    >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
   
   







    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>
    >>> wd
    >>>
    >>> Am 25.04.16 um 21:10 schrieb Greim, Helmut:
    >>>> Dear all,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >>>> Helmut
    >>>>
    >>>> Am 25.04.2016 17:30, schrieb Boobis, Alan R:
    >>>>> Richard
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I agree with these points.  We need to consider the alternative
    >>>>> viewpoints and what is it we would like to realistically achieve.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> In my view we do need to emphasize the importance of risk
    >>>>> assessment,
    >>>>> as opposed to hazard identification for a range of socio-economic
    >>>>> reasons (which we can elaborate); and the danger of considering risk
    >>>>> in isolation, without considering alternative risks or benefits.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Best wishes,
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Alan
    >>>>> ________________________________________
    >>>>> 
    
    
    
    
    
    



Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to 
Identify Endocrine Disrupting Substances in the European Union 
Rémy Slama1, Jean-Pierre Bourguignon2, Barbara Demeneix3, Richard Ivell4, Giancarlo 
Panzica5, Andreas Kortenkamp6, and Thomas Zoeller7 
1Inserm and Univ. Grenoble Alpes, IAB joint research center, Team of Environmental 
Epidemiology, Grenoble, France; 2Pediatric Endocrinology, CHU Liège and 
Neuroendocrinology Unit, GIGA Neurosciences, Univ. Liège, Belgium; 3UMR 
CNRS/MNHN 7221, Dept. RDDM, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, 75005 Paris, 
France; 4School of Biosciences & School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of 
Nottingham, UK; 5Dept. Neuroscience, University of Torino, and Neuroscience Institute 
Cavalieri Ottolenghi (NICO), Orbassano, Italy; 6Brunel University London, Institute of 
Environment, Health and Societies, Uxbridge, UK; 7University of Massachusetts, Biology 
Department, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA 
Address correspondence to Rémy Slama, E-mail:  xxxx.xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx 
Running title: Criteria to identify endocrine disruptors 
Acknowledgments:  The authors acknowledge the support of the Endocrine Society for 
meetings related to endocrine disruptors. 
Competing financial interests: None. Additional information: RS, JPB, BD, RI, GP and TZ 
have had travel fees covered by the Endocrine Society (non-profit organization) for travel and 
accommodation expenses to meetings related to endocrine disruptors. 
 
 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
ABSTRACT 
Background:
 Endocrine Disruptors (EDs) are defined by WHO as exogenous compounds or 
mixtures that alter function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects 
in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations. European regulations on pesticides, 
biocides, cosmetics, and industrial chemicals require the European Commission to establish 
scientific criteria to define EDs. 
Objectives: We address the scientific relevance of four options for the identification of EDs 
proposed by the European Commission. 
Discussion: Option 1, which does not define EDs and implies to use interim criteria unrelated 
to the WHO definition of EDs, is not relevant. Options 2 and 3 rely on the WHO definition for 
EDs,  which is widely  accepted by the scientific  community,  with  option 3  introducing 
additional categories based on the strength of evidence (suspected EDs and endocrine active 
substances). Option 4 adds potency to the WHO definition, as a decision criterion. We argue 
that potency is dependent on the adverse effect considered, is scientifically ambiguous and 
note that potency is not used as a criterion to define other particularly hazardous substances 
such as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. The use of potency requires a context that 
goes beyond hazard identification and corresponds to risk characterization, in which potency 
(or, more relevantly, the dose-response function) is combined with exposure levels. 
Conclusions: There is scientific agreement regarding the adequacy of the WHO definition of 
EDs. The potency concept is not relevant to the identification of particularly serious hazards 
such as EDs. As is common practice for carcinogens, mutagens and reproductive toxicants, a 
multi-level classification of ED based on the WHO definition, and not considering potency, 
would be relevant (corresponding to option 3 proposed by the European Commission). 
 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Introduction 
The regulation of chemicals identifies specific classes of health hazards such as carcinogens, 
mutagens and reprotoxicants. Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are a new type of hazard identified 
by research. WHO defined an ED as “…an exogenous substance or mixture that alters the 
function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse effects in an intact 
organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations” (WHO/IPCS 2002). Following the first 
scientific reference to EDs (Colborn et al. 1993), a large body of research has considerably 
improved our understanding of their effects in wildlife and humans (e.g., Braun et al. 2011; 
Delfosse et al. 2014; Frye et al. 2012; Heindel et al. 2015; Kortenkamp et al. 2011; Shelton et 
al. 2014; UNEP/WHO 2013; Warner et al. 2014; Woodruff et al. 2011).  
In 1999, the European Union (EU) became the first major economy to develop a strategy for 
the regulation of EDs (European Commission 1999). Subsequently, EDs have been addressed 
in at least four acts of EU law: the water framework directive (European Parliament 2000), 
REACH (the European Regulation on Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction 
of Chemicals)(European Parliament 2006), the Cosmetics Regulation (European Parliament 
2009a), the Plant Protection Products Regulation (PPPR)(European Parliament 2009b), as 
well as the Biocidal Products Regulation (European Parliament 2012). The two latter 
regulations required the European Commission to establish scientific criteria to identify 
substances with endocrine disrupting properties before December 2013.  
The PPPR and the BPR specify that substances with ED properties used as pesticides or 
biocides will not receive approval for their use, with certain exceptions (e.g., if exposure is 
negligible). Thus, these laws are not based on risk assessment for EDs present in biocides and 
pesticides, but only require hazard identification if exposure is not negligible. This 
corresponds to so-called "hazard-based cut-off criteria" (see Figure 1 for the distinction 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
between hazard – a source of potential health effects – and risk – the actual impact of a 
substance in a population, in terms of disease probability or number of attributable disease 
cases). This hazard-based approach to pesticide and biocide regulation has been opposed by 
companies that market pesticides and biocides (CEFIC 2013; European commission 2015; 
European Crop Protection Association 2014). 
In addition, editors of pharmacology and toxicology journals condemned in an editorial the 
proposed European Commission recommendations on ED regulations, which they claimed 
were based on scientifically unfounded precaution, defied common sense and well-established 
risk assessment principles; they called for the consideration of adverse effects and potency 
(Dietrich et al. 2013). Their editorial was criticized for being based on a factually incorrect 
interpretation of the proposed regulatory framework and for ignoring the programming role of 
the endocrine system during development (Bergman et al. 2013, Gore et al. 2013). Its authors 
were also called upon to provide information about potential conflicts of interest (Grandjean 
and Ozonoff 2013).  
At a meeting convened by the EU Commission including signatories of the Dietrich et al. 
editorial and scientists with a strong base in ED research, a consensus was reached on the 
definition of EDs, on the existence of non-monotonic dose-responses and on the difficulties of 
determining thresholds for EDs (European commission 2013).  
Despite the obligations to establish scientific criteria to identify EDs by December 2013, as 
specified by EU laws (European Parliament 2009b, 2012), no such criteria were published to 
date by the European Commission. Instead, the European Commission published a roadmap 
listing four options for defining criteria for identifying EDs and initiated an assessment of 
their impact (European Commission 2014)(Table 1). One of the options included in the 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
roadmap (option 4) would use potency as a decision criterion during the process of hazard 
identification.   
The disregard for the obligations laid down in EU law led Sweden and several other EU 
countries to sue the European Commission. In December 2015, the European Court of Justice 
ruled that the European Commission acted unlawfully in failing to develop ED criteria and 
that an impact assessment was unnecessary (European Court of Justice 2015). This judgment 
heightened the urgency of developing scientifically-based regulatory criteria for identifying 
EDs. 
Objectives 
We elaborate some principles of ED regulation and specifically discuss the scientific 
relevance of each option considered by the European Commission to identify an ED, 
reviewing the availability of accepted definitions of EDs, endocrine active substances, and the 
relevance of the concept of potency for hazard identification. A parallel with carcinogens is 
drawn. The relevance of impact assessment studies to define scientific criteria is finally 
discussed. 
Discussion 
I. Proposed options regarding criteria for EDs in Europe  
The general intention of defining ED criteria is “to ensure a high level of protection to human 
health and the environment and to strengthen the functioning of the internal market” 
(European Commission 2014). The four options proposed (European Commission 2014) are 
detailed in Table 1 and summarized below: 
-  Option 1 consists of no policy change and no specification of criteria; 
-  Option 2 relies on the World Health Organization (WHO) definition to identify EDs 
(WHO/IPCS 2002). This option a) identifies EDs as substances known or presumed to 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
cause endocrine-mediated adverse effects in humans or animal species living in the 
environment; b) stipulates that endocrine-mediated adverse effects should not be a 
non-specific secondary consequence of other toxic effects; c) defines adverse effects 
(as discussed below); d) excludes substances for which there is information 
demonstrating that the effects are not relevant for humans and for animal species 
living in the environment; and finally e) lists the step-by-step procedure to be followed 
for the identification; 
-  Option 3 relies on the identification of ED as in Option 2 and further defines suspected 
endocrine disruptors and endocrine active substances (see below); 
-  Option 4 relies on the WHO/IPCS definition of ED, and includes potency as element 
of hazard characterization. Potency is not defined, nor is the manner in which it would 
be combined with the ED definition. 
The European Commission (2014) indicated that Option 1 (no specification of criteria) would 
run counter to the requirements of regulations calling for an operational definition of EDs. 
Moreover, the PPPR and BPR laws mention interim criteria, and these would likely apply. 
According to these interim criteria, all substances classified as carcinogenic category 2 or 
toxic for reproduction category 2 shall be considered as EDs (European Parliament 2009b). 
These interim criteria based on the definitions of carcinogens and reproductive toxicants have 
no scientific relevance to the WHO/IPCS definition of endocrine disruptors (WHO/IPCS 
2002), so that Option 1 would not be scientifically justified. Consequently, we do not discuss 
this option further.  
II. Availability of a definition of EDs  
Option 2 of the roadmap defines EDs and adverse effect. At a workshop convened in 1996 in 
Weybridge (UK) by the European Commission, WHO and other institutions, an ED was 
defined as "an exogenous substance that causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
or its progeny, secondary to changes in endocrine function" (quoted by EFSA Scientific 
Committee 2013). Several definitions were subsequently suggested by Canadian, Japanese 
and other institutions (reviewed by Kortenkamp et al. 2011), after which the International 
Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS), in collaboration with experts from Canada, Japan, the 
USA, and the EU, defined an ED as “…an exogenous substance or mixture that alters the 
function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse effects in an intact 
organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations” (WHO/IPCS 2002). The main differences with 
the Weybridge definition are the consideration of mixtures and of effects in populations or 
subpopulations. 
The definition issued from the workshop convened by the US-Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) in 1995 in Raleigh (Kavlock et al. 1996), which is still referred to by EPA 
(EPA 2015), differs from the WHO/IPCS definition by lack of reference to adverse effects. As 
discussed below, substances acting on the endocrine system without evidence of an adverse 
health effect would be defined as endocrine active substances under Option 3.  
It can be noted that for other categories of health hazards, specific adverse health effects are 
often referred to, as is the case for carcinogens or reprotoxins, while for mutagens there is 
only a reference to a mode of action. The WHO/IPCS definition of EDs refers to both a mode 
of action and an adverse effect at the scale of organs, organisms or populations. Consequently, 
conclusions about the nature of an ED require the integration of biochemical, toxicological, 
ecotoxicological/human data.  
EFSA recommended that the WHO/IPCS definition be "adopted as a basis for the criteria for 
the identification of EDs" (EFSA Scientific Committee 2013). The European Commission 
roadmap acknowledges that "there is general consensus on the WHO/IPCS (2002) definition 
of an ED" (European Commission 2014). 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
The ED definition mentions adverse effects. Adverse effects were defined as a "change in the 
morphology, physiology, growth, development, reproduction or lifespan of an organism, 
system or (sub)population that results in an impairment of functional capacity, an impairment 
of the capacity to compensate for additional stress or an increase in susceptibility to other 
influences" (WHO/IPCS 2009). The EC roadmap explicitly refers to this definition. This 
definition covers health effects at the individual level such as occurrence of diabetes or 
obesity, IQ loss, as well as congenital malformations, or changes not visible at the individual 
but only at the population level, such as alteration of the sex-ratio. It excludes, among others, 
transient changes in hormone levels that would not induce health effects in the short or long 
term. To our knowledge this definition has not been questioned. The expression of 
“(sub)population” in WHO/IPCS definition refers to effects that may concern the population 
as a whole or a specific subgroup (e.g. based on gender, age, genetic susceptibility, etc.).  
III Suspected EDs and Endocrine Active Substances (Option 3) 
In addition to defining an ED as in Option 2, Option 3 proposes two additional categories, 
suspected endocrine disruptors and endocrine active substances (EAS), that express the 
strength of evidence for a given compound. 
Suspected endocrine disruptors are defined in the roadmap as “Substances where there is 
some evidence for endocrine-mediated adverse effects from humans, animal species living in 
the environment or from experimental studies, but where the evidence is not sufficiently 
strong to place the substance in Category I…” (European Commission 2014). This definition 
is close to the WHO/IPCS definition of a possible endocrine disruptor (“an exogenous 
substance or mixture that possesses properties that might be expected to lead to endocrine 
disruption in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations.") (WHO/IPCS 2002). 
Endocrine active substances are defined in the European Commission roadmap as: 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
“Substances for which there is some (…) potential for endocrine disruption mediated adverse 
effects in intact organisms and where the evidence is not sufficiently convincing to place the 
substance in category I [ED] or II [suspected ED]" (European Commission 2014). We believe 
that the terminology of endocrine active substance does not convey this lower level of 
evidence (a hierarchy such as ED [category I], presumed ED and suspected ED, similar to that 
of carcinogens shown in Table 1, would better fit this purpose). In contrast, an Endocrine 
active substance is defined by EFSA as “any chemical that can interact directly or indirectly 
with the endocrine system, and subsequently result in an effect on the endocrine system, target 
organs and tissues” (EFSA Scientific Committee 2013). The term is used to cover “all 
substances that in some way interfere with the endocrine system, but not necessarily induce 
adverse effects”. This definition transmits the notion that there is evidence regarding the mode 
of action of the substance (interference with the endocrine system), but not regarding the 
induction of adverse effects, which is in line with the terminology of endocrine active 
substances. Therefore, we suggest to use the EFSA definition for EAS instead of the EC 
roadmap definition. 
IV. Introduction of potency as a criterion for hazard identification (Option 4) 
Option 4 of the roadmap is based on the WHO/IPCS definition of an ED, with potency as an 
added criterion. This option echoes approaches developed by the UK and German authorities 
with the explicit intention of limiting the number of substances that would fall under the 
hazard-based cut-off criteria of the PPPR and BPR (discussed in Kortenkamp et al. 2011). A 
publication from the German Federal institute for risk assessment also suggested to consider 
potency to identify EDs (Marx-Stoelting et al. 2015). 
Potency is not well-defined; it is not in the glossary of terms of the environmental health 
criteria published by the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS 2009). The term is 
 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
presented in a publication sponsored by ECETOC, the European Centre for Ecotoxicology 
and Toxicology of Chemicals, a non-profit association of companies with interests in the 
manufacture and use of chemicals, as being "primarily based on the dose causing a specific 
toxic effect" without being clearly defined (Hennes et al. 2014). A publication from the 
German Federal institute for risk assessment indicates that “Potency relates to the dose levels 
at which certain effects occur.” (Marx-Stoelting et al. 2015). The International Union of 
Pharmacology defines potency as “an expression of the activity of a drug, in terms of the 
concentration or amount needed to produce a defined effect; an imprecise term that should 
always be further defined (see EC50, IC50, etc.)” (where EC50 is further defined as “The molar 
concentration of an agonist that produces 50% of the maximal possible effect of that agonist. 
Other percentage values (EC20, EC40, etc.) can be specified.”) (Neubig et al. 2003). 
Hence, in pharmacology, potency is related to the dose-response function: a substance that at 
a certain dose causes 50% of its possible maximal effect magnitude (e.g., rate of animals with 
a specific disease) is considered more potent than another substance for which the same effect 
magnitude is attained at a larger dose. As already mentioned (Neubig et al. 2003), sometimes 
doses other than those leading to 50% of a given effect are used, such as 10% of a given 
effect, without apparent scientific justification of how these cut-off values are chosen. Thus, 
potency is simply a point of the dose-response function, corresponding to the dose at which 
this dose-response function intersects an arbitrary response level (Figure 2A). 
Note that the step by step procedure of the EC roadmap (Options 2 and 3) mentions that it is 
necessary to « evaluate whether endocrine disruption is due to a specific endocrine-mediated 
mode of action and not to a non-specific secondary consequences of other toxic 
effects »  (European Commission 2014). Consequently, effects that would occur at very high 
doses at which general toxicity is observed would generally not be enough to qualify the 
 
10 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
compound as an ED, without the need to explicitly introduce concepts related to the dose at 
which effects occur. 
The introduction of potency as a criterion in hazard identification would lead to several 
difficulties. First, this concept is not suited for compounds for which non-monotonic dose-
response functions are possible, as is the case for EDs (Vandenberg et al. 2012). Second, the 
introduction of potency as a decision criterion may force the establishment of dichotomous 
regulatory cut-off values that are entirely arbitrary and not science-based, such that an ED 
with a potency of 10 mg/kg/day might be classified as an ED, while an ED with a potency 11 
mg/kg/day (hence causing the same effect at an exposure of 11 instead of 10 mg/kg/day) 
would not be classified as an ED. Third, potency comparisons are influenced by the effect 
magnitude that is chosen to define the doses to be compared (i.e., whether one considers a 
10% or a 50% increase, see Figure 2A), and by the health endpoint considered to define 
potency. Overall, potency is not a relevant concept for hazard identification. 
Even in the context of risk management, potency alone is of little use. Indeed, dose-response 
functions, from which potency is defined, are not meaningful alone, and need to be interpreted 
in relation to exposure, which allows estimation of the level of risk for a given population 
(Figure 1). Low potency compounds with shallow dose-response functions and very frequent 
exposures (Figure 2B) may present greater risks at the population level than more potent 
chemicals with steep dose-response functions but less frequent exposure (Figure 2C). Well-
established examples illustrating that the dose-response (or potency) cannot be considered 
alone to predict risk include airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5)(WHO 2014) and low 
exposures during critical windows of vulnerability like fetal development, such as those 
demonstrated for effects of PCBs on intellectual quotient (Jacobson and Jacobson 1996; 
Schantz et al. 2003). Accordingly, the EFSA scientific committee stated "… that, to assess 
 
11 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
whether or not a (predefined) level of concern is reached for an ED, potency should not be 
used alone but should take account of actual or predicted exposure.” (EFSA Scientific 
Committee 2013). Indeed, potency replaces dose-response curves by a single point of the 
curve, which results in a strong loss of information. If a risk-based and not hazard-based 
management is chosen, the relevant approach is to take into account the variations of the dose-
response function over the whole range of exposures and combine it with actual exposures, for 
all relevant health outcomes, i.e. to explicitly perform a risk assessment study – but this goes 
beyond the steps required for hazard identification. 
In the context of the PPPR and BPR, where some substances are to be regulated mostly on the 
basis of their hazard (at least if exposure is not negligible) and not their risk, considering dose-
response functions (or potency) at the step of hazard identification would lead to reintroducing 
a logic of risk assessment. The discussion of whether or not the hazard-based logic of the 
PPPR and BPR for EDs should be modified into a risk-based regulation is a matter of policy. 
If deemed relevant by regulators, risk assessment should not be reintroduced partially (by 
considering only a component of risk assessment), nor "by the back door", i.e., indirectly, by 
requiring consideration of a criterion related to risk assessment such as potency. Rather, if 
necessary, this should be done explicitly, by modifying the legislation. 
V. Parallel with hazard identification in the field of carcinogens 
Another key argument against adopting criteria for EDs considering potency is consistency 
with the identification of other hazards of similar concern, such as carcinogens or 
reproductive toxicants. Several other types of chemical hazards are explicitly referred to in the 
EU regulation, including carcinogens, mutagens, reprotoxins. Carcinogens are defined as "a 
substance or a mixture of substances which induce cancer or increase its incidence. 
Substances which have induced benign and malignant tumors in well-performed experimental 
 
12 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
studies on animals are considered also to be presumed or suspected human carcinogens unless 
there is strong evidence that the mechanism of tumor formation is not relevant for humans" 
(European Parliament 2008). For carcinogens, the EU defines three categories for 
carcinogenic substances (1A, 1B and 2, the latter corresponding to suspected carcinogens, 
Table 2). The classification of a substance in any category is based on a scientific assessment 
of the hazard (hazard identification) and does not take into consideration other components of 
the risk assessment scheme (Figure 1) such as "potency". Opting for options 2 or 4 would 
separate EDs from other hazards of equivalent concerns because the number of hazard 
categories would differ (in the case of Option 2, for which a substance is either identified as 
an ED or not, not alerting industry, consumers or policy-makers to suspected EDs) or because 
potency would be considered (Option 4). This would run counter to the policy choice of the 
legislation to consider EDs as being of equivalent concern to carcinogens, mutagens and 
reprotoxicants. Overall, the example of carcinogens shows that criteria defining a serious 
hazard need not be complex, nor need to resort to potency and risk-related concepts. 
VI. Impact assessment studies are not designed to help defining hazards 
The European Commission is carrying out an impact assessment as a preliminary step before 
deciding among the four options. Impact assessment studies provide an assessment of the 
potential economicsocial and environmental impacts of alternative policy options. They 
would make sense if policy options were currently examined (e.g., between hazard-based 
regulation of pesticides or risk-based regulation), or after the implementation of a policy to 
judge its results. Here the relevant regulations (PPPR, BPR, REACH laws) have already been 
enacted but not applied.  
Scientific criteria should rely on a scientific foundation. It is not the evaluation of the impact 
of a family of compounds that should guide their scientific definition; rather, the adoption of a 
 
13 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
scientific definition conditions any impact evaluation. Continuing the previous parallel with 
other health hazards, carcinogens were defined prior to obtaining a clear picture of the number 
of existing carcinogens, and independently of their impact. Similarly, it would not be 
necessary to perform an impact assessment study before defining X-rays or explosives. 
Studies of the impact of some EDs on disease burden and cost in Europe have already been 
published (Trasande et al. 2015). The economic cost associated with exposure to non-banned 
EDs in the EU was estimated to be 157 billion Euros per year (Trasande et al. 2015).   
If option A leads to the identification of 10 substances that are EDs while option B identifies 
50 further substances, will option B be preferred to limit the health impact of EDs or will 
option A be chosen to limit constraints on the industrial sector? Economic and health impacts 
are subject to quick changes as a function of exposure levels, development of substitutes or 
alternative industrial processes, existence of companies with relevant substitutes... Will the 
impact assessment be updated to take these changes into account, and the criteria modified 
accordingly? 
In its ruling against the European Commission, the European court of justice stated that "the 
definition of scientific criteria to identify properties disrupting the endocrine system can only 
be done in an objective manner based on scientific data relative to the endocrine system, 
independently from any other consideration, and in particular from any economic 
consideration." (European Court of Justice 2015). Making a scientific definition dependent on 
the results of an assessment of its impact would be a dangerous precedent for public health 
and science in general. 
Conclusion 
The laws passed by the European parliament during the last decade constitute an innovative 
approach to limit health risks posed by EDs.  
 
14 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
We have presented and discussed each option proposed by the European Commission to 
identify EDs (European Commission 2014), and provided specific recommendations (Table 
3). Only options 2 and 3 comply with science. There is scientific consensus on the relevance 
of the WHO/IPCS definition of an ED (WHO/IPCS 2002). Option 4 modifies this definition 
by introducing the notion of potency, which is absent from the WHO/IPCS definition and 
from the criteria identifying carcinogens, which are hazards of equivalent concern to EDs. We 
believe that, because of the parallel with definitions of carcinogenic hazards (which have 
different categories based on evidence levels) and because it calls for the identification of 
suspected EDs, Option 3 is more relevant. This will provide a simple classification conveying 
the weight of the scientific evidence regarding the likelihood for the compound to be an ED: 
endocrine disruptors (expressing certainty), suspected endocrine disruptors, and endocrine 
active substances (see Table 2). 
We recognize that scientific uncertainty remains with regard to the finer detail of mechanisms, 
the exact extent of health and environmental effects of EDs and their impact at the population 
level. There are also great uncertainties as to the number of substances likely to be identified 
as EDs. However, as demonstrated by the 40 years of work by the International Agency for 
Research on Cancer to identify carcinogens (Pearce et al. 2015), the availability of a clear 
definition of the hazard considered is a necessary first step. Once defining criteria are 
available, one can develop appropriate testing methods, identify substances and manage risk. 
Some of the test methods that will be required for regulatory purposes need to be developed 
and agreed upon. 
There is no scientific or public health justification for the delay in the adoption of scientific 
criteria for EDs. 
 
15 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
As scientists, we believe that impact assessment studies should not be used to define scientific 
criteria, nor be used as an argument for postponing the publication of a scientific definition. 
We are concerned that an impact assessment study could be used to bend science towards an 
outcome defined by aspects external to science. We are convinced that the (vague) notion of 
potency has no place in a hazard identification context. We are concerned that scientific 
definitions are being distorted in order to modify the spirit of a law which requires hazard-
based management of EDs present in pesticides and biocides if exposure is not negligible, and 
not a risk-based management, thereby muddling science and policy. We believe that scientific 
criteria identifying EDs should follow the logic of the EU criteria for other serious hazards 
such as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. We regret that several years have been spent 
on trying to issue scientific criteria defining a hazard that actually has been defined years 
earlier by a state-of-the-science report from WHO. We fear that the most plausible 
explanation for this delay is not a lack of scientific consensus but rather that postponing the 
publication of the scientific criteria is a way to postpone the full application of the 2009 
pesticide regulation and 2012 biocide European regulation. This postponement is all the more 
worrying since these scientific criteria are but one of the first steps towards identifying EDs 
and providing more efficient protection of public health in the European Union.  
 
 
 
16 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
References 
Braun JM, Kalkbrenner AE, Calafat AM, Yolton K, Ye X, Dietrich KN, et al. 2011. Impact of 
early-life bisphenol a exposure on behavior and executive function in children. 
Pediatrics 128:873-882. 
CEFIC. 2013. CEFIC's response - addressing the four discussion topics included in the 
Community strategy for endocrine disruptors. Available: 
http://www.asktheeu.org/fr/request/650/response/3056/attach/18/19.sanco.ddg2.e.3%20
2013%202884470%20annex.pdf [accessed 3 April 2016]. 
Colborn T, vom Saal FS, Soto AM. 1993. Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting 
chemicals in wildlife and humans. Environ Health Perspect 101:378-384. 
Delfosse V, Maire AL, Balaguer P, Bourguet W. 2014. A structural perspective on nuclear 
receptors as targets of environmental compounds. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 
Dietrich DR, Aulock S, Marquardt H, Blaauboer B, Dekant W, Kehrer J, et al. 2013. 
Scientifically unfounded precaution drives european commission's recommendations on 
edc regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk 
assessment principles. Chem Biol Interact 205:A1-5. 
EFSA Scientific Committee. 2013. Scientific opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine 
disruptors:Scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and 
appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these 
substances on human health and the environment. EFSA Journal 11:3132. Available: 
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/fr/efsajournal/pub/3132 [accessed 3 April 2016]. 
EPA. 2015. What is endocrine disruption? Available: https://www.epa.gov/endocrine-
disruption/what-endocrine-disruption [accessed 3 April 2016]. 
European Commission. 1999. Community strategy for endocrine disruptors - a range of 
substances suspected of interfering with the hormone systems of humans and wildlife. 
 
17 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Fed Reg COM (1999) 706. Available: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/docum/99706sm.htm [accessed 3 April 2016] 
European commission. 2013. Minutes of the expert meeting on endocrine disruptors held in 
the office of the chief scientific adviser on oct. 24 2013. Available: 
http://ec.europa.eu/archives/commission_2010-2014/president/chief-scientific-
adviser/documents/minutes_endocrine_disruptors_meeting_241013_final.pdf [accessed 
23 March 2016]. 
European Commission. 2014. Roadmap-defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors 
in the context of the implementation of the plant protection product regulation and 
biocidal products regulation. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/impact/planned_ia/docs/2014_env_009_endocrine_disruptors_en.pdf 
[accessed 3 April 2016] 
European commission. 2015. Report on public consultation on defining criteria for identifying 
endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the plant protection product 
regulation and biocidal products regulation. Brussels: European Commission, Health 
and Food Safety. Available: 
http://ec.europa.eu/health/endocrine_disruptors/docs/2015_public_consultation_report_e
n.pdf [Accessed 23 March 2016]. 
European Court of Justice. 2015. Règlement (UE) n°528/2012 - Produits biocides - Recours 
en carence - Spécification des critères scientifiques pour la détermination des propriétés 
perturbant le système endocrinien - Défaut de la part de la Commission d'adopter des 
actes délégués - Obligation d'agir. Available: 
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document_print.jsf?doclang=FR&text=&pageInde
x=0&part=1&mode=lst&docid=173067&occ=first&dir=&cid=750233 [Accessed 23 
March 2016] 
 
18 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
European Crop Protection Association. 2014. ECPA’s position on the criteria for the 
determination of endocrine disrupting properties under regulation 1107/2009. Available: 
http://www.ecpa.eu/files/attachments/23734_ECPA position paper on endocrine 
disruptors - 10 March 2014.pdf [Accessed 23 March 2016]. 
European Parliament. 2000. Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council establishing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy. 
Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:5c835afb-2ec6-4577-bdf8-
756d3d694eeb.0004.02/DOC_1&format=PDF [Accessed 23 March 2016] 
European Parliament. 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and 
of the Council on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of 
Chemicals (REACH). Available: [Accessed 23 March 2016] 
European Parliament. 2008. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and 
of the council of 16 December 2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of 
substances and mixtures, amending and repealing directives 67/548/EEC and 
1999/45/EC, and amending regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. Fed Reg No 1272/2008. 
Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/en/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A02008R1272-20150601 [Accessed 23 March 2016] 
European Parliament. 2009a. Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 of 30 November 2009 on 
cosmetic products. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:02009R1223-20150416&from=EN [Accessed 23 
March 2016] 
European Parliament. 2009b. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of 21 October 2009 concerning 
the placing of plant protection products on the market and repealing council directives 
79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-
content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32009R1107 [Accessed 23 March 2016] 
 
19 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
European Parliament. 2012. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 of 22 May 2012 concerning the 
making available on the market and use of biocidal products (BPR). Available: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02012R0528-
20140425&from=EN [Accessed 23 March 2016] 
Frye CA, Bo E, Calamandrei G, Calza L, Dessi-Fulgheri F, Fernandez M, et al. 2012. 
Endocrine disrupters: A review of some sources, effects, and mechanisms of actions on 
behaviour and neuroendocrine systems. J Neuroendocrinol 24:144-159. 
Grandjean P, Ozonoff D. 2013. Transparency and translation of science in a modern world. 
Environ Health 12:70. 
Heindel JJ, vom Saal FS, Blumberg B, Bovolin P, Calamandrei G, Ceresini G, et al. 2015. 
Parma consensus statement on metabolic disruptors. Environ Health 14:54. 
Hennes C, Batke M, Bomann W, Duhayon S, Kosemund K, Politano V, et al. 2014. 
Incorporating potency into eu classification for carcinogenicity and reproductive 
toxicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 70:457-467. 
IPCS. 2009. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. 
(Environmental Health Criteria). 240. International Programme on Chemical Safety. 
Available: http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc240_index.htm [Accessed 23 
March 2016] 
Jacobson JL, Jacobson SW. 1996. Dose-response in perinatal exposure to polychlorinated 
biphenyls (PCBs): The Michigan and North Carolina cohort studies. Toxicol Ind Health 
12:435-445. 
Kavlock RJ, Daston GP, DeRosa C, Fenner-Crisp P, Gray LE, Kaattari S, et al. 1996. 
Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine 
disruptors: A report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop. Environ Health Perspect 104 
Suppl 4:715-740. 
 
20 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Kortenkamp A, Martin O, Faust M, Evans R, McKinlay R, Orton F, et al. 2011. State of the 
art of assessment of endocrine disrupters. Available: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf 
[Accessed 23 March 2016] 
Marx-Stoelting P, Braeuning A, Buhrke T, Lampen A, Niemann L, Oelgeschlaeger M, et al. 
2015. Application of omics data in regulatory toxicology: Report of an international 
BfR expert workshop. Arch Toxicol 89:2177-2184. 
Neubig RR, Spedding M, Kenakin T, Christopoulos A, International Union of Pharmacology 
Committee on Receptor N, Drug C. 2003. International union of pharmacology 
committee on receptor nomenclature and drug classification. XXXVIII. Update on terms 
and symbols in quantitative pharmacology. Pharmacol Rev 55:597-606. 
Pearce N, Blair A, Vineis P, Ahrens W, Andersen A, Anto JM, et al. 2015. IARC 
monographs: 40 years of evaluating carcinogenic hazards to humans. Environ Health 
Perspect 123:507-514. 
Schantz SL, Widholm JJ, Rice DC. 2003. Effects of PCB exposure on neuropsychological 
function in children. Environmental Health Perspectives 111:357-376. 
Shelton JF, Geraghty EM, Tancredi DJ, Delwiche LD, Schmidt RJ, Ritz B, et al. 2014. 
Neurodevelopmental disorders and prenatal residential proximity to agricultural 
pesticides: The CHARGE study. Environ Health Perspect 122:1103-1109. 
Trasande L, Zoeller RT, Hass U, Kortenkamp A, Grandjean P, Myers JP, et al. 2015. 
Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in 
the european union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100:1245-1255. 
UNEP/WHO. 2013. World Health Organization, United Nation Environmental Program. In: 
Bergman, A., Heindel, J.J., Jobling, S., Kidd, K.A., Zoeller, R.T. (Eds.), State of the 
science of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Available: 
 
21 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
http://www.who.int/ceh/publications/endocrine/en/index.html [Accessed 23 March 
2016] 
Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs DR, Jr., Lee DH, et al. 2012. 
Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic 
dose responses. Endocr Rev 33:378-455. 
Warner M, Wesselink A, Harley KG, Bradman A, Kogut K, Eskenazi B. 2014. Prenatal 
exposure to dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and obesity at 9 years of age in the 
Chamacos study cohort. Am J Epidemiol 179:1312-1322. 
WHO. 2014. WHO expert meeting: Methods and tools for assessing the health risks of air 
pollution local, national and international level (meeting report). Available: 
http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-
quality/publications/2014/who-expert-meeting-methods-and-tools-for-assessing-the-
health-risks-of-air-pollution-at-local,-national-and-international-level [Accessed 23 
March 2016] 
WHO/IPCS. 2002. Global assessment of the state-of-the-science of endocrine disruptors. 
WHO/PCS/EDC/02.2. Available: 
http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/endocrine_disruptors/en/ [Accessed 
23 March 2016] 
WHO/IPCS. 2009. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. 
(Environmental Health Criteria).World Health Organisation. International Program on 
Chemical Safety. Available: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/chemical-
food/en/ [Accessed 23 March 2016] 
Woodruff TJ, Zota AR, Schwartz JM. 2011. Environmental chemicals in pregnant women in 
the United States: NHANES 2003-2004. Environmental Health Perspectives 119:878-
885. 
 
22 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Table 1: Four options to identify endocrine-disrupting substances in the EC 2014 roadmap (European Commission 2014). 
Option  Details 
Comments 

No criteria are specified. The interim criteria set in the BPR and PPPR continue to apply. 
Would run counter the PPPR and 
BPR, which require scientific criteria 
to be defined.  Would lead to the 
interim criteria (which are not 
coherent with the WHO/IPCS (2002) 
definition of EDs) to be used. 

WHO/IPCS definition (WHO/IPCS 2002) to identify ED (hazard identification). ED are identified as: 
 
a) Substances which are i) known or presumed to have caused endocrine-mediated adverse effects in humans or 
population-relevant endocrine-mediated adverse effects in animal species living in the environment or ii) where 
there is evidence from experimental studies (in vivo), possibly supported with other information (e.g. (Q)SAR, 
analogue and category approaches) to provide a strong presumption that the substance has the capacity to cause 
endocrine-mediated adverse effects in humans or population-relevant endocrine-mediated adverse effects on 
animal species living in the environment; 
b) the experimental studies used to determine if a substance is an endocrine disruptor shall provide clear 
evidence of endocrine-mediated adverse effects in the absence of other toxic effects, or if occurring together 
with other toxic effects, the endocrine-mediated adverse effects should not be a non-specific secondary 
consequence of other toxic effects;  
c) An adverse effects is a change in the morphology, physiology, growth, development, reproduction, or, life 
span of an organism, system, or (sub)population that results in an impairment of functional capacity, an 
impairment of the capacity to compensate for additional stress, or an increase in susceptibility to other 
influences, as stated in (WHO/IPCS 2009); 
d) where there is (e.g. mechanistic) information demonstrating that the effects are clearly not relevant for 
humans and not relevant at population level to animal species living in the environment, then the substance 
should not be considered an endocrine disruptor; 
e) The identification shall follow a step by step procedure as follows: i) gather all available data; ii) assess the 
 
23 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
  data quality, reliability, reproducibility and consistency; iii) consider adversity and mode of action together in a 
weight of evidence approach based on expert judgment; iv) evaluate whether endocrine disruption is due to a 
specific endocrine-mediated mode of action and not to a non-specific secondary consequences of other toxic 
effects; v) evaluate human and wildlife relevance; vi) final (eco)toxicological evaluation indicating, where 
possible, whether the adverse effect is in relation to human health or environment (vertebrates and/or 
invertebrate populations), and where possible which are the axes or mechanisms concerned (e.g. estrogenic, 
androgenic, thyroid and/or steroidogenic axes) 

WHO/IPCS definition (WHO/IPCS 2002) to identify ED (hazard identification) as in option 2. Introduction of  The definition of  endocrine active 
additional categories based on the different strength of evidence for fulfilling the WHO/IPCS definition:  
substances  (category III) does not 
Category I: endocrine disruptors (as defined in 2a-2d). 
follow the definition provided by 
Category II:  suspected endocrine disruptors, defined as substances where there is some evidence for  EFSA, which refers to substances that 
endocrine-mediated adverse effects from humans, animal species living in the environment or from  can interfere or react with the 
experimental studies, but where the evidence is not sufficiently strong to place the substance in Category I. If,  endocrine system (without evidence of 
for example, limitations in the studies make the quality of evidence less convincing, Category II could be more  adverse effect).  
appropriate. Points 2b, 2c (definition of adverse effect) and 2d above remain valid for Category II. 
Category III: endocrine active substances, defined as substances for which there is some in vitro or in vivo 
evidence indicating a potential for endocrine disruption mediated adverse effects in intact organisms and where 
the evidence is not sufficiently convincing to place the substance in category I or II.  
The allocation to categories shall follow a step-by-step procedure (identical to that listed in 2e above). 

WHO/IPCS definition (WHO/IPCS 2002)  to identify ED (hazard identification) and inclusion of potency as  Potency is not defined. Option 4 
element of hazard characterization 
introduces elements of risk 
assessment. No step-by-step procedure 
provided as in 2 and 3. 
BPR: Biocide Products Regulation (EU); PPPR: Plant Protection Products Regulation (EU). 
 
 
24 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Table 2: Categories of carcinogenic substances, as defined by the EU CLP regulation (EC, No. 1272/2008 on classification, labeling and 
packaging of substances and mixtures). In the right-hand column, we have added the 3 levels for EDs proposed in Option 3 of the European 
Commission roadmap (2014).  
Carcinogens (a) 
 
Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (option 3 of the EC Roadmap) 
Hazard Class 
 
 
Hazard 
Class 
 
Category 1A 
Substances known to have carcinogenic potential for 
 

humans (b) 
Substances known to be an endocrine disruptor  
Category 1B 
Substances presumed to have carcinogenic potential for 
humans  (b) 
 
II 
Suspected endocrine disruptors 
Category 2 
Suspected human carcinogens (c) 
 
III 
Endocrine active substances 
   
a. A carcinogen is defined as a substance or a mixture of substances which induce cancer or increase its incidence. Substances which have 
induced benign and malignant tumors in well performed experimental studies on animals are considered also to be presumed or suspected human 
carcinogens unless there is strong evidence that the mechanism of tumor formation is not relevant for humans (European Parliament 2008) .  
b. A substance is classified in Category 1 for carcinogenicity on the basis of epidemiological and/or animal data. A substance may be further 
distinguished as:   Category 1A, known to have carcinogenic potential for humans, classification is largely based on human evidence, or category 
1B, presumed to have carcinogenic potential for humans, classification is largely based on animal evidence.   
c. According to the EU regulation, the placing of a substance in Category 2 (Suspected human carcinogens) is done on the basis of evidence 
obtained from human and/or animal studies, but which is not sufficiently convincing to place the substance in Category 1A or 1B, based on 
strength of evidence together with additional considerations. Such evidence may be derived either from limited evidence of carcinogenicity in 
human studies or from limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animal studies.  
 
 
 
25 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Table 3: Recommendations. 
RECOMMENDATION 
RATIONALE 
1. Refer to the WHO/IPCS (2002) definition of 
Follow scientific consensus. 
EDs, potential (suspected) ED, and adverse effects; 
and to the EFSA definition of endocrine active 
substances.  
2. Identify hazards without referring to potency. 
Potency is poorly defined, endpoint 
dependent, is not used to define other 
hazards of equivalent concern such as 
carcinogens and belongs to risk 
assessment, not hazard identification.  
Any change in the spirit of the law 
3. Consider hazard identification and risk 
should be done explicitly in the law, 
characterization as separate issues. Do not use 
scientific criteria to move from a hazard-based to a  not via a delegate act. 
risk-based regulation for specific substances 
4. Establish scientific ED criteria irrespective of an  Impact assessment studies are not 
impact assessment study 
meant to provide scientific definitions.  
5. Incorporate the level of evidence in 
Proven to be relevant for carcinogens 
characterization of EDs (option 3) 
and other hazardous substances of 
equivalent concern to EDs. 
 
 

 
 
26 

Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Figure Legends 
Figure 1: Hazard-based versus risk-based management of hazards. Note that the step of risk 
characterization is sometimes (ambiguously) termed hazard characterization.  
Figure 2: Illustration of issues with the potency concept with hypothetical dose-response 
functions and distributions of exposure. A) Situation of dose-response functions that cross: If 
potency is defined as the dose ED50 leading to 50% of a given response, then chemical with 
the dose-response function a is considered more potent than chemical with exposure-response 
function b; if potency is defined as the dose leading to 10% of the response (ED10), then 
chemical with dose-response a is less potent than chemical with exposure-response bB) 
Shallow dose-response function (and low potency) with a large proportion of highly exposed 
subjects, hence entailing a possibly high risk. C) Steep dose-response function (and high 
potency) with a low proportion of highly exposed subjects, hence entailing a possibly similar 
or lower risk. Blue bars in B) and C) represent the distribution of exposure in the population. 
 
 
27 


Environ Health Perspect DOI: 10.1289/EHP217 
Advance Publication: Not Copyedited 
 
Figure 1. 
 
 
 
 
28 







Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 10:07:31 +0100
Subject: Re: meeting with Commissioner May 3
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
CC: "Greim, Helmut" 
        "Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        "xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx" <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        "xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx" <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        
    Thanks Alan, Helmut
    I'm also now booked into 
   
    Richard
   
    On 21/04/2016 09:34, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
   
    >Richard
    >
    >A number of us are staying at 
    >
    >Best wishes,
    >
    >Alan
    >
    >Sent from my iPhone
    >
    >> On 21 Apr 2016, at 10:32, SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx> wrote:
    >>
    >> Which hotel(s) are you guys staying at?
    >> Richard
    >>
    >>> On 20/04/2016 08:31, "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx> wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Helmut
    >>>
    >>> Many thanks indeed.
    >>>
    >>> Best wishes,
    >>>
    >>> Alan
    >>>
    >>> ________________________________________
    >>> From: Greim, Helmut 
    >>> Sent: 20 April 2016 08:02
    >>> To: Heslop-Harrison, Pat (Prof.)
    >>> Cc: Boobis, Alan R; xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx;
    >>> xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx;
    >>> 
    >>> Subject: RE: meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>>
    >>> Dear all,
    



    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
    >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
    >>
   
   

Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 13:41:28 +0100
Subject: Re: meeting with Commissioner May 3
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: "Greim, Helmut" 
,
        "Boobis, Alan R" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
CC: "xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx" <xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        "xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx" <xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx>,
        "xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        "xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx" xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
    There is a chance I may be able to make next Tuesday 17:00 CET, but I am
    at an important meeting from 13.30 in another location and with no clear
    idea of what time it will finish.
   
    Best wishes
   
    Richard
   
    On 19/04/2016 13:02, "Greim, Helmut" <
>
    wrote:
   
    >Dear all,
    
    
    >Helmut
    >
    >Am 19.04.2016 13:54, schrieb Boobis, Alan R:
    >> Helmut
    >>
    >> My apologies, but I will be at WHO meeting in Geneva on Friday
    >> (possibly available for a call at 17:00 CET at the airport).  Monday
    >> and Tuesday next week I am tied up chairing the SAB for an EU project.
    >>  Again, possibly available at 17:00 on Tuesday from the airport.
    >>
    >> Best wishes,
    >>
    >> Alan
    >>
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: Greim, Helmut 
    >> Sent: 19 April 2016 12:33
    >> To: Boobis, Alan R <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>;
    >> xxxxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxx.xx; xxxxxx@xxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx;
    >> xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx; x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx; 
    >> Subject: meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>
    >> Dear all,
    
    
    
    
    
    >> Helmut
    >

Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:02:11 +0100
Subject: Re: Meeting with Commissioner May 3
From: SHARPE Richard <x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx>
To: "Greim, Helmut" 
,
        Colin Berry <xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
CC: "x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx" <x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx>,
        "xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx" <xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx>
    Hi Helmut
   
    I have just replied to 
 and said I can attend (depending on funding)
    on May 3-4 and happy to participate also in the meeting with Dr.
    Andriukaitis of DG Sante.
   
    Best wishes
   
    Richard
   
   
    On 07/04/2016 09:58, "Greim, Helmut" <
>
    wrote:
   
    >Dear Colin,
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    >Helmut
    >
    >Am 07.04.2016 10:24, schrieb Colin Berry:
    >> Dear All,
    >>          I am sorry that I am committed In London until  late on the 3rd. Is
    >> it worth my coming for this meeting only on the 4th?  I would need
    >> support for my fare.
    >> Colin Berry
    >>
    >> -----Original Message-----
    >> From: Greim, Helmut 
    >> Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 3:22 PM
    >> To: Colin Berry; x.xxxxxx@xx.xx.xx; x.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xx.xx;
    >> xxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xx.xx
    >> Subject: Meeting with Commissioner May 3
    >>
    >> Dear all,
    >>
    
    
    
    

    
    
    
    
    
    >>
    >> Sincerely,
    >> Helmut
   
   

Document Outline