Limitations chemical dating
Skip to Critique Regulators can rely on lists, too. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for example, regulators rely on two lists to help the EPA implement its widely respected Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).
For example, in response to questions about whether certain environmental chemicals may interfere with the endocrine system and cause negative effects, government and scientific bodies have been working to distinguish between whether a substance is merely chemicals to screen and test for endocrine activity and potential endocrine disruption. In publishing these screening lists, EPA has been careful to highlight several key points for policymakers and the public: list of “endocrine disruptors” at all – preferring to assess chemicals on a case-by-case basis; taking into account the entire body of toxicological evidence available; and factoring in actual human exposure levels.
For example, the site cannot determine your email name unless you choose to type it.
Allowing a website to create a cookie does not give that or any other site access to the rest of your computer, and only the site that created the cookie can read it.
In addition, when several different lists that use varying definitions and criteria are combined, the resulting data is tainted.
As a result, the public and policymakers may wrongfully assume that each chemical listed was done so based on equally valid and robust science, and that each chemical is equally potent and poses equivalent risk, when the opposite might be true.
Lists are problematic not only for the substances they inappropriately reference, but also for the ones they don’t.
One of the goals of this webpage is help the public, media and policymakers understand why many of the most often cited “lists of EDCs” lack credibility and authority – and therefore, are not suitable for use in private sector standards and certification programs, purchasing decisions, or in regulatory decision-making.
In 2016 United Nations Environment (UNE) commissioned the International Panel on Chemical Pollution (IPCP) to research and identify every “list of EDCs” that had been published to date – including from governments, private groups, and others – and compile them into a single chemical database.but 24 self-identified “lists of EDCs” floating around in the public sphere, essentially diluting the meaning or relevance of all of the lists.