Firm human evidence on harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals was unlikely to be obtainable for methodological reasons

Duk Hee Lee, David R Jacobs Jr

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objective: Despite plausible laboratory evidence about harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies do not consistently find such harms. The purpose of this article was to discuss why solid human evidence on EDCs was unlikely to be obtainable even though they are truely harmful to humans. Results: Indeed, there are insurmountable methodological limitations in human studies. They include unpredictable net effects of diverse EDC mixtures, low reliability of exposure assessment, nonmonotonic dose-response relationships, nonexistence of an unexposed group, and complicated interactions with diet and obesity. The exposome is never free from these methodological issues. Therefore, the most persuasive evidence about human harms of EDCs may be increasing EDC-linked diseases at population levels, but traditional epidemiological studies of EDCs, especially short-lived and widely used EDCs, fail to provide consistent results. Nevertheless, human studies of EDCs with long half-lives, for example, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), are still worthwhile because there are fewer methodological issues. Also, they can play a role as surrogate markers of lipophilic chemical mixtures. Notably, although POPs are well-known EDCs, human findings on POPs cannot be attributed to common hormone-disrupting properties because the net effect of diverse EDC mixtures cannot be reliably predicted even with POPs. Homeostasis disruption through mitochondrial dysfunction may be more relevant to such effects. Conclusion: Logical inference should play a primary role in judging harms of EDCs in humans.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)107-115
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume107
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019

Fingerprint

Endocrine Disruptors
Epidemiologic Studies
Meta-Analysis
Homeostasis
Obesity
Biomarkers

Keywords

  • Chemical mixtures
  • EDCs
  • Epidemiology
  • Evolution
  • Nonmonotonic dose-response relationship
  • Reliability

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Cite this

@article{62cc9aa14efa41ed9cef1980e09b95ad,
title = "Firm human evidence on harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals was unlikely to be obtainable for methodological reasons",
abstract = "Background and Objective: Despite plausible laboratory evidence about harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies do not consistently find such harms. The purpose of this article was to discuss why solid human evidence on EDCs was unlikely to be obtainable even though they are truely harmful to humans. Results: Indeed, there are insurmountable methodological limitations in human studies. They include unpredictable net effects of diverse EDC mixtures, low reliability of exposure assessment, nonmonotonic dose-response relationships, nonexistence of an unexposed group, and complicated interactions with diet and obesity. The exposome is never free from these methodological issues. Therefore, the most persuasive evidence about human harms of EDCs may be increasing EDC-linked diseases at population levels, but traditional epidemiological studies of EDCs, especially short-lived and widely used EDCs, fail to provide consistent results. Nevertheless, human studies of EDCs with long half-lives, for example, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), are still worthwhile because there are fewer methodological issues. Also, they can play a role as surrogate markers of lipophilic chemical mixtures. Notably, although POPs are well-known EDCs, human findings on POPs cannot be attributed to common hormone-disrupting properties because the net effect of diverse EDC mixtures cannot be reliably predicted even with POPs. Homeostasis disruption through mitochondrial dysfunction may be more relevant to such effects. Conclusion: Logical inference should play a primary role in judging harms of EDCs in humans.",
keywords = "Chemical mixtures, EDCs, Epidemiology, Evolution, Nonmonotonic dose-response relationship, Reliability",
author = "Lee, {Duk Hee} and {Jacobs Jr}, {David R}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "107",
pages = "107--115",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Firm human evidence on harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals was unlikely to be obtainable for methodological reasons

AU - Lee, Duk Hee

AU - Jacobs Jr, David R

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Background and Objective: Despite plausible laboratory evidence about harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies do not consistently find such harms. The purpose of this article was to discuss why solid human evidence on EDCs was unlikely to be obtainable even though they are truely harmful to humans. Results: Indeed, there are insurmountable methodological limitations in human studies. They include unpredictable net effects of diverse EDC mixtures, low reliability of exposure assessment, nonmonotonic dose-response relationships, nonexistence of an unexposed group, and complicated interactions with diet and obesity. The exposome is never free from these methodological issues. Therefore, the most persuasive evidence about human harms of EDCs may be increasing EDC-linked diseases at population levels, but traditional epidemiological studies of EDCs, especially short-lived and widely used EDCs, fail to provide consistent results. Nevertheless, human studies of EDCs with long half-lives, for example, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), are still worthwhile because there are fewer methodological issues. Also, they can play a role as surrogate markers of lipophilic chemical mixtures. Notably, although POPs are well-known EDCs, human findings on POPs cannot be attributed to common hormone-disrupting properties because the net effect of diverse EDC mixtures cannot be reliably predicted even with POPs. Homeostasis disruption through mitochondrial dysfunction may be more relevant to such effects. Conclusion: Logical inference should play a primary role in judging harms of EDCs in humans.

AB - Background and Objective: Despite plausible laboratory evidence about harms of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs), systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies do not consistently find such harms. The purpose of this article was to discuss why solid human evidence on EDCs was unlikely to be obtainable even though they are truely harmful to humans. Results: Indeed, there are insurmountable methodological limitations in human studies. They include unpredictable net effects of diverse EDC mixtures, low reliability of exposure assessment, nonmonotonic dose-response relationships, nonexistence of an unexposed group, and complicated interactions with diet and obesity. The exposome is never free from these methodological issues. Therefore, the most persuasive evidence about human harms of EDCs may be increasing EDC-linked diseases at population levels, but traditional epidemiological studies of EDCs, especially short-lived and widely used EDCs, fail to provide consistent results. Nevertheless, human studies of EDCs with long half-lives, for example, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), are still worthwhile because there are fewer methodological issues. Also, they can play a role as surrogate markers of lipophilic chemical mixtures. Notably, although POPs are well-known EDCs, human findings on POPs cannot be attributed to common hormone-disrupting properties because the net effect of diverse EDC mixtures cannot be reliably predicted even with POPs. Homeostasis disruption through mitochondrial dysfunction may be more relevant to such effects. Conclusion: Logical inference should play a primary role in judging harms of EDCs in humans.

KW - Chemical mixtures

KW - EDCs

KW - Epidemiology

KW - Evolution

KW - Nonmonotonic dose-response relationship

KW - Reliability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059174873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059174873&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.005

M3 - Article

VL - 107

SP - 107

EP - 115

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

ER -