No legislation regulates endocrine disruptors in Europe. 100 scientists sound the alarm and blame the industry for holding back debate.
They are everywhere. In kitchens, bathrooms or playrooms, gardens… The whole house is contaminated by endocrine disruptors. Pollution ranges from cosmetics to pesticides to food cans. And yet, nothing limits our exposure. It’s fed up time for 100 scientists around the world. In the columns of World, they denounce the pressures of the industry to maintain the vagueness around these products which disturb the hormonal system.
A contrived controversy
Among the signatories, well-known names in the field, such as Rémy Slama – research director at Inserm – or even Barbara Demeneix – endocrinologist at Inserm. All agree on one point: the regulations are far from sufficient around endocrine disruptors. In question, according to them, the “merchants of doubt”, namely the industrialists. His weapon: scientists linked to the manufacturers who use these products. Because the signatories take a clear position against the industry. They accuse him of distorting scientific data and maintaining scholarly vagueness in an area where controversy does not take place.
Several pathologies in which hormones are involved are on the rise: cancers of the breast and genital organs, genital malformations, or even brain development disorders. The causes are multiple, concede the authors of this forum. Lifestyle comes into play. But the omnipresence of endocrine disruptors is far from trivial. Scientists believe that it is their responsibility to relaunch the debate in order to make decision-makers react.
The softness of the EU
The solution is simple, according to the forum. Only stricter regulations, at state and European Union level, will limit exposure to these chemicals. But Brussels does not seem ready to take this step. Its definition of endocrine disruptors was slow to become known, and its content leaves much to be desired. The delay is accumulating and COP 21 should have a limited impact. As proof, no country has yet taken the step of legislation.
For this immobility, the signatories see only one explanation: the industry is stepping up efforts to delay preventive actions. “This same strategy has been used by the tobacco industry, contaminating the debate, sowing doubt in the population and undermining the initiatives of political leaders and decision-makers to develop and adopt more effective regulations”, denounce the authors.
At a time when François Fillon is discussing the abolition of the concept of the precautionary principle, the problem is one-ne-can-more topical.
.
