Perils of paradigm: Complexity, policy design, and the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source

Volumn 4, Issue , 2005, Pages

  Vogel, Jason M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENDOCRINE DISRUPTOR;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; FOOD QUALITY; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; REVIEW;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HORMONE ANTAGONISTS; HUMANS; ORGANIZATIONAL POLICY; POLITICS; PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICITY TESTS; UNCERTAINTY; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 34248655654     PISSN: 1476069X     EISSN: 1476069X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1476-069X-4-2     Document Type: Review

References (53)

1. Our Stolen Future [http://www.ourstolenfuture.org]
2. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. Public Law 104-170, 110 Stat 1489 .
3. Federal Register. 63 FR 71542 1998.
4. Priority Setting Overview [http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/ prioritysetting/overview.htm]
5. Joint Hearings: Safety of Pesticides in Food. In Senate Committee on Labor and Resources and House Subcommittee on Health and the Environment Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1993.
6. Montague P: The Toxic Substances Control Act. Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly 1997:564.
7. Roe D, Pease W, Florini K, Silbergeld E: Toxic Ignorance: The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States New York: Environmental Defense Fund; 1997.
8. Groth El, Benbrook CM, Benbrook KL, Goldberg AJ: A Report Card for the EPA: Successes and Failures in Implementing the Food Quality Protection Act Yonkers, NY: Consumer's Union of the United States; 2001.
9. Cox C: Pesticide registration: No guarantee of safety. Journal of Pesticide Reform 1997, 17:2-9.
10. Vogel JM: Tunnel Vision: The Regulation of Endocrine Disruptors. Policy Sciences in press.
11. Federal Register. 63 FR 71545 1998.
12. Fagin D, Lavelle M: Toxic Deception: How the chemical industry manipulates science, bends the law, and endangers your health Monroe: Common Courage Press; 1999.
13. Federal Register. 63 FR 71544 1998.
14. Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee: Final Report Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 1998.
15. Federal Register. 63 FR 71547 1998.
16. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program Components [http://www.epa.gov/ scipoly/oscpendo/edspoverview/components.htm]
17. Federal Register. 67 FR 79614 2002.
18. Natural Resources Defense Council: Intolerable risk: Pesticides in our children's food. New York 1989.
19. National Research Council: Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1993.
20. Daisy J, McConnell G: Review of the EPA's proposed environmental endocrine disruptor screening program Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency; 1999.
21. Yang RSH, Thomas RS, Gustafson DL, Campain J, Benjamin SA, Verhaar HJM, Mumtaz MM: Approaches to Developing Alternative and Predictive Toxicology Based on PBPK/PD and QSAR Modeling. Environ Health Persp 1998:1385-1393.
22. vom Saal FS, Timms BG, Montanto MM, Palanza P, Thayer KA, Nagel SC, Dhar MD, Ganjam VK, Parmigiani S, Welshons WV: Prostate enlargement in mice due to fetal exposure to low doses of estradiol or diethylstilbestrol and opposite effects at high doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1997, 94:2056-2061.
23. Cavieres MF, Jaeger J, Porter W: Developmental Toxicity of a Commercial Herbicide Mixture in Mice: I. Effects on Embryo Implantation and Litter Size. Environ Health Persp 2002, 110:1081-1085.
24. National Toxicology Program: Endocrine Disruptor Low Dose Peer Review Research Triangle Park, NC: National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health; 2001.
25. Kaiser J: Sipping From a Poisoned Chalice. Science 2003, 302:376-379.
26. Elliot K: Scientific Anomaly and Biological Effects of Low-Dose Chemicals: Elucidating Normative Ethics and Scientific Discovery. In PhD thesis University of Notre Dame, Program in History and Philosophy of Science; 2004.
27. New Science: Mixtures of Chemicals [http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/ NewScience/synergy/mixtures.htm]
28. Federal Register. 63 FR 71550 1998.
29. Rothman N, Cantor KP, Blair A, Bush D, Brock JW, Helzlsouer K, Zahm SH, Needham LL, Pearson GR, Hoover RN, et al.: A nested case-control study of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and serum organochloride residues. Lancet 1997, 350:240-244.
30. Mahaffey KR: Nutrition and Lead: Strategies for Public Health. Environ Health Persp 1995:191-196.
31. Body Burden 1995 [http://www.ewg.org/reports/bodyburden/].
32. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta 2001.
33. Centers for Disease Ccontrol and Prevention: Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Atlanta 2003.
34. McLachlan JA, Arnold SF: Environmental Estrogens. Am Sci 1996, 84:452-461.
35. National Research Council: Hormonally Active Agents in the Environment Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999.
36. Environmental Protection Agency: Assessing Health Risks from Pesticides. Washington, DC: Office of Pollution Prevention worksheet; 1999.
37. Klinke A, Renn O: A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk-Based, Precaution-Based, and Discourse-Based Strategies. Risk Analysis 2002, 22:1071-1094.
38. Assay Status Table [http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/oscpendo/assayvalidation/ status.htm]
39. Cox C: Inert Ingredients in Pesticides: Who's Keeping Secrets. Journal of Pesticide Reform 1999:19.
40. Environmental Protection Agency: Inert ingredients in pesticides: Report of audit Washington, DC: Office of the Inspector General; 1991.
41. General Accounting Office: Toxic Substances Control Act: Legislative Changes Could Make the Act More Effective Washington, DC; 1994.
42. General Accounting Office: Agricultural Pesticides: Management Improvements Needed to Further Promote Integrated Pest Management Washington, DC; 2001.
43. CBS-TV: A is for Apple. 60 Minutes 1989.
44. Environmental Working Group: Ten Years Later, Myth of 'Alar Scare' Persists: How Chemical Industry Rewrote History of Banned Pesticide. Washington, DC; 1999.
45. Young FE, Moore J: Alar Use on Apples. Washington, DC; 1989.
46. Federal Register. 54 FR 22558 1989.
47. Federal Register. 54 FR 47493 1989.
48. Brody JE: Personal Health; Health Scares That Weren't So Scary. The New York Times. New York 1998:F7.
49. Negin E: The Alar "Scare" Was for Real; And So is that "Veggie Hate- Crime" Movement. Columbia Journalism Review 1996.
50. Stern PC, Fineberg HV, eds: Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1996.
51. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001.
52. Weiss C: Expressing scientific uncertainty. Law, Probability and Risk 2003, 2:25-46.
53. Weiss C: Scientific uncertainty in advising and advocacy. Technology in Society 2002, 24:375-386.