Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

Environmental Health Sciences, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, USA.
Environmental Health Perspectives (Impact Factor: 7.98). 04/2009; 117(3):309-15. DOI: 10.1289/ehp.0800173
Source: PubMed


In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world.
We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes.
Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research.
Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Download full-text


Available from: Scott M Belcher,
    • "There are several areas where it fails to provide evidence of the real-life hazards of chemicals and nanomaterials, as discussed above. Apart from these gaps there is also a tendency for ERAs to focus too rigidly on achieving transparency and reliability through demands for GLP and standard tests (Myers et al., 2009). Whereas such demands make good sense in relation to data provided by industry, they nevertheless pose a problem in regard to data produced by academia and published in peer-reviewed journals. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Environmental risk assessment (ERA) is often considered as the most transparent, objective and reliable decision-making tool for informing the risk management of chemicals and nanomaterials. ERAs are based on the assumption that it is possible to provide accurate estimates of hazard and exposure and, subsequently, to quantify risk. In this paper we argue that since the quantification of risk is dominated by uncertainties, ERAs do not provide a transparent or an objective foundation for decision-making and they should therefore not be considered as a "holy grail" for informing risk management. We build this thesis on the analysis of two case studies (of nonylphenol and nanomaterials) as well as a historical analysis in which we address the scientific foundation for ERAs. The analyses show that ERAs do not properly address all aspects of actual risk, such as the mixture effect and the environmentally realistic risk from nanomaterials. Uncertainties have been recognised for decades, and assessment factors are used to compensate for the lack of realism in ERAs. The assessment factors' values were pragmatically determined, thus lowering the scientific accuracy of the ERAs. Furthermore, the default choice of standard assay for assessing a hazard might not always be the most biologically relevant, so we therefore argue that an ERA should be viewed as a pragmatic decision-making tool among several, and it should not have a special status for informing risk management. In relation to other relevant decision-making tools we discuss the use of chemical alternative assessments (CAAs) and the precautionary principle.
    Science of The Total Environment 10/2015; 541:784-794. DOI:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.09.112 · 4.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "Such outcomes transpire when most published studies do not meet specific criteria, even when the inclusion of this data would result in different conclusions. Although the criteria are meant to establish that the data quality is sufficient for regulation and minimizes ambiguities in cause–effect relationships, which are important for regulation and potential litigation, strict criteria can result in basing regulatory decisions on only a handful of studies (as with the assessment of bisphenol-A; Myers et al. 2009). In the 2007 and 2012 USEPA assessments on the effects of atrazine on amphibians (USEPA 2007, 2012), only one of 75 published laboratory studies (Kloas et al. 2009; field studies were evaluated but excluded from consideration) met the USEPA's criteria for quantitative assessment (i.e., useful for risk assessment; the test criteria are detailed in USEPA 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Pesticide use results in the widespread distribution of chemical contaminants, which necessites regulatory agencies to assess the risks to environmental and human health. However, risk assessment is compromised when relatively few studies are used to determine impacts, particularly if most of the data used in an assessment are produced by a pesticide's manufacturer, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Here, we present the shortcomings of the US Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide risk assessment process, using the recent reassessment of atrazine's impacts on amphibians as an example. We then offer solutions to improve the risk assessment process, which would reduce the potential for and perception of bias in a process that is crucial for environmental and human health.
    BioScience 10/2014; 64(10):917-922. DOI:10.1093/biosci/biu138 · 5.38 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "). (4) Positive controls (when feasible) limit false negative results (Myers et al., 2009), but are never mentioned in the TGs or in guidance. (5) Toxicity is almost always detected with the light microscope and a few gross biochemistry measures, rather than also employing academia's advanced imaging and biochemistry methods (Koshland Jr., 1998). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Risk assessment of chemicals and other agents must be accurate to protect health. We analyse the determinants of a sensitive chronic toxicity study, risk assessment's most important test. Manufacturers originally generate data on the properties of a molecule, and if government approval is needed to market it, laws globally require toxicity data to be generated using Test Guidelines (TG), i.e. test methods of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), or their equivalent. TGs have advantages, but they test close-to-poisonous doses for chronic exposures and have other insensitivities, such as not testing disease latency. This and the fact that academic investigators will not be constrained by such artificial methods, created a de facto total ban of academia's diverse and sensitive toxicity tests from most risk assessment. Objective: To start and sustain a dialogue between regulatory agencies and academic scientists (secondarily, industry and NGOs) whose goals would be to (1) agree on the determinants of accurate toxicity tests and (2) implement them (via the OECD). Discussion: We analyse the quality of the data produced by these incompatible paradigms: regulatory and academic toxicology; analyse the criteria used to designate data quality in risk assessment; and discuss accurate chronic toxicity test methods. Conclusion: There are abundant modern experimental methods (and rigorous epidemiology), and an existing systematic review system, to at long last allow academia's toxicity studies to be used in most risk assessments.
    Environmental Research 09/2014; 135C:139-147. DOI:10.1016/j.envres.2014.07.016 · 4.37 Impact Factor
Show more