Full paper available from Cancer Epidemiology. The International Journal of Cancer Epidemiology, Detection and Prevention. 

Authors: Valerie A. McCormack , Joachim Schuz

Ref: Cancer Epidemiol. 2012 Feb;36(1):1-7. Epub 2011 Oct 12.

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Section of Environment and Radiation, 150 cours Albert Thomas, 69372 Lyon Cedex 08, France.

Abstract:

Background: Primary prevention measures are needed for Africa’s cancer burden (715,000 new cases and 542,000 deaths in 2008), a burden projected to double by 2030 due to demographic changes alone. Control of cancer-causing infections and lifestyle-related carcinogens will play a significant role in prevention, but less often addressed are environmental and occupational contributions.

Methods: We review environmental issues that contribute to Africa’s Cancer burden. Results: We demonstrate evidence of the impact of environmental carcinogens on the cancer burden as of now and that circumstances present today may increase their contribution further. Suboptimal implementation and monitoring of environmental protection and of occupational health standards, including in the informal sector, use of outdated technologies in industry and lack of awareness of potential hazards in the specific employment structure give rise to high levels of exposures. Carcinogens of concern include (i) those that have been long present (e.g. indoor air pollution) whose contribution may increase as life-expectancy increases and long latency periods for cancer are realised, (ii) exposures in mining and agricultural sectors and (iii) modern environmental hazards, including urban air pollution and agents arising from the mis-management of hazardous waste from local, industrial and trans-boundary sources. Conclusions: Actions taken to reduce exposures and research to fill gaps in knowledge, adapted to local settings, could help mitigate the cancer burden.

Occupational cancer a workplace guide says the prevention of workplace cancer has a much lower profile in the workplace than preventing injuries, despite the fact that only 220 to 250 workers die each year as a result of an immediate injury as opposed to the 15,000 to 18,000 that die from cancer. TUC is calling for greater efforts to prevent cancers, through removing the cause from the workplace, better standards and enforcement and greater union involvement in finding solutions.

The guide notes: Trade unions have been at the forefront of the campaign against the use of carcinogens in the workplace. Many substances that employers once claimed were safe have only been recognised as dangerous because unions highlighted the fact that workers were dying as a result of exposure, or because unions have campaigned for their ban or control.

According to TUC: Following pressure from unions, a large number of employers have managed to substitute cancer-causing chemicals with safer ones. Examples include trichloroethylene as a cleaner for metal, cancer-causing inks in printing, and formaldehyde and insulating foams in furniture.

In an accompanying guide to the number of occupational cancers, TUC warns that a failure by the authorities to show the same sort of resolve will have tragic consequences, and warns that government safety cuts will kill. What we do today will have a major impact, but it will not be seen for perhaps 20 or even 40 years, the statistics guide notes. By cutting regulation and enforcement it is not only fatalities from injuries that will go up, it is also future deaths from cancer.

Occupational cancer a workplace guide, TUC, February 2012 [pdf].

Occupational cancer the figures: briefing for activists, February 2012.

From Rory O’Neill www.hazards.org 

8/12/11

If over 40% of cancer is attributable to lifestyle and the environment, what about the other 60%?

The British Journal of Cancer’s [1] report on the fraction of cancers attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors once again misses the mark, and yet another opportunity to address the real causes of the ever increasing rising incidence of cancer.

The Alliance for Cancer Prevention is concerned that the report places blame at the feet of the individual, instead of at the feet of government, industry and the cancer organisations, to stem the rising incidence of a largely preventable disease.

While in the report consideration is given to a small number of the confounding environmental and occupational risk factors,[2] they are narrowly defined, inadequately addressed and their impact sorely underestimated. [3]

The only environmental element considered is radiation, and there is absolutely no consideration given to our exposures in the wider environment, or in our first environment, the womb. Given that childhood cancer is increasing by 3% every 3 years [4] and there is much evidence to suggest pre-birth exposures can dictate future cancers, [5]  these ‘acceptable’ risk factors, do not apply to childhood cancers.

The report’s selection of risk factors is based on 3 criteria; sufficient evidence, data from population studies and achievable, modifiable risks.  It is unclear and undefined how much evidence is ‘sufficient’, what evidence has been consider, by whom, and by what criteria such evidence is included in the study or dismissed. The modifiable risks seem chosen to support individual action only and not the urgent action that is needed on primary prevention by government or the cancer organisations.

The Alliance thinks that if the population studies, in the report, failed to consider the environmental and occupational risk factors, then the data would be skewed in favour of addressing the ‘acceptable’ risk factors, which are focused on individual instead of institutional action. There is no consideration given to the fact that lifestyle factors are influenced by economic and social aspects.

The risk factors used in the report are selected by ‘”internationally agreed consensus”, but there is no reference as to who this international body is, where the selection takes place or what selection criteria were used? The Alliance would like to know more.

The World Health Organisation acknowledges the environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer in the Asturias Declaration [6] and confirms that “Primary prevention – prevention of the exposures that cause cancer – is the single most effective means of prevention”. Yet there is not one mention of primary prevention in the entire BJC report.

Professor Richard Clapp from the Boston University School of Public Health and author of the Environmental and Occupational Causes of Cancer [7] observes: “Section 14 (of the BMJ’s report) reads like a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma (to borrow a phrase from Winston Churchill), with lots of uncertainties about the effect of multiple exposures, lack of information, etc.  The ghost of Sir Richard Doll haunts the analyses, and his name is the first to appear in the references section.  Nevertheless, despite all the limitations and probable underestimates, the author lists occupation fifth, with 11,494 cases in 2010.  This strikes me as a massive annual burden on working people in the UK and well worth all reasonable efforts to reduce it”.  

Professor Rory O’Neill of Stirling University notes: “Real life is more complicated. Getting cancer is a social class issue; surviving cancer is a social class issue. Until the view from the ivory towers reflects that from the tower blocks, the finger of blame will point at the victims, and not at those that really control their cancer risks”.

The Scottish Hazards Campaign asks: “If the % of causes attributable to work is greater than that % attributable to alcohol, then why are there no concrete measures to address work related causes of cancer? 

The UK is still lagging behind more progressive countries in terms of addressing the primary prevention of cancer. The US Presidents Cancer Panel Report states: “Environmental health, including cancer risk, has been largely excluded from overall national policy on protecting and improving the health of Americans. It is more effective to prevent disease than to treat it, but cancer prevention efforts have focused narrowly on smoking, other lifestyle behaviours, and chemopreventive interventions.” [8]

The Alliance questions why: “The cancer establishments in Canada [9]and France [10] ’ [11] have identified, and targeted for action, the environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer while the UK is still lagging behind, why don’t we address the other 60%”?

The Alliance is a multi-stakeholder group which includes representatives from: NGOs, Trade Unions, environmental and occupational health organisations, public health advocates and civil society groups, working together on cancer prevention. We aim to; challenge the existing perception of control and treatment of cancer being the best way forward; get equal recognition for primary prevention and ensure that the cancer establishment acknowledges the environmental and occupational risk factors for preventable cancers.

Alliance for Cancer Prevention:allianceforcancerprevention@yahoo.co.uk
M: 07960033687
Prof Rory O’Neill: editor@hazards.org
Prof Richard Clapp: rclapp@bu.edu
Scottish Hazards Campaign: info@scottishhazards.co.uk

Notes to Editor

[1] British Journal of Cancer report Volume 105, Issue S2 (si-S81) Published 6 Dec 2011. http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v105/n2s/index.html

[5] Soto, AM & Sonnenschein C. Environmental causes of cancer: endocrine disruptors as carcinogens. Nature  Reviews Endocrinology 6, 363-370 (July 2010). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18557596

[6] WHO Asturias Declaration: A Call to Action. http://www.who.int/phe/news/events/international_conference/en/

[8] President’s Cancer Panel Annual Report – (US) 2008 -2009. US Dept of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health and the National Cancer Institute.
http://deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/annualReports/pcp08-09rpt/PCP_Report_08-09_508.pdf

[9] Canadian Cancer Society. Environmental Risk Factors for Cancer.
http://www.cancer.ca/Canada-wide/Prevention/Environment%20and%20you/Risk%20factors%20for%20cancer.aspx?sc_lang=en

[10] Cancer and the Environment A collective expert report by Inserm 2008. http://english.inserm.fr/thematiques/public-health/collective-expert-reports

Alliance signs up to call on the WHO and the UN to include environmental and occupational factors in disease prevention.

A call to the UN and the WHO from over 100 scientists, health professionals, civil society representatives and other stakeholders, led by Dr Annie J Sasco and André Cicolella from France, to tackle the challenge of non-communicable diseases by global action, especially in low-and-medium income countries, including environmental health factors and occupational disease prevention.

The Alliance for Cancer Prevention (UK) participated in the WHO International Conference on Environmental and Occupational Determinants of Cancer: Interventions for Primary Prevention in Asturias earlier this year, where a call to action ( Asturias Declaration) acknowledged the substantial percentage of cancers caused by environmental and occupational exposures. The declaration calls for the primary prevention of environmental and occupational cancer in countries around the world.

The WHO and UN high-level meeting on noncommunicable disease prevention and control will take place in New York on the 19th and 20th Sept. Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) like heart attacks and strokes, cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory disease account for over 63% of deaths in the world today.

We want to make sure that cancer is not classified as a ‘lifestyle’ disease, many cancer’s can be attributed to environmental and occupational exposures and, as such, are preventable. According to the May 2010 report to President Obama by the Presidents Cancer Panel, exposure to carcinogens at work and in the wider environment poses a serious threat , the full extent of the problem has been “grossly under-estimated” because of a lack of research.

We know from experience that the full answer does not lie only down the road of detection and pharmaceutical intervention, but also with primary prevention. We do not want our future to hold the inevitability of cancer.

One of the recommendations from the Asturias meeting was to shift the paradigm to primary prevention in cancer control as a fundamental principle at global, national and regional level.

The Alliance wants to see environmental and occupational risk factors included and addressed in all Cancer Plans in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The Alliance is a UK based multi stakeholder group which includes representatives from NGOs, environmental and occupational health organisation’s, trade unions, public health advocates and civil society groups, to work together on cancer prevention. The Alliance aims to challenge the existing perception of control and treatment of cancer being the best way forward and get equal recognition for primary prevention and to ensure that the cancer establishment acknowledge the environmental and occupational risk factors for preventable cancers.

Contact:
Helen Lynn
Facilitator
Alliance for Cancer Prevention
M: 07960033687
helenlynn@btinternet.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Press Release

Paris, France, September 16th 2011

United Nations High Level Expert Committee Meeting on the Prevention and Control of Non-Communicable Diseases at the global level, 19th-20th September: will action follow the Asturias declaration?

In an open letter released today, more than 100 scientists, health professionals, civil society representatives and other stakeholders, led by Dr Annie J Sasco and André Cicolella from France, urge the UN and WHO to tackle the challenge of non-communicable diseases by global action, especially in low-and-medium income countries, including environmental health factors and occupational disease prevention. The UN high-level meeting on prevention and control of non-communicable diseases hosted in New-York during the upcoming UN General Assembly session will be key to shaping global health politics for the years to come.

During a preparatory meeting to the UN high-level meeting in Asturias last April, a call to action on cancer primary prevention was adopted by participants to urge WHO and the UN to take effective measures towards cancer prevention worldwide, to protect vulnerable populations, reflecting scientific evidence on the role of environmental (chemical, physical, biological) risk factors in the occurrence of non-communicable diseases, whose list should not be limited to the originally four recognized health conditions of cancer, diabetes, cardio-cerebro-vascular and respiratory diseases, but also extend beyond to reproductive, neurologic and psychiatric disorders.

At a time where economic interests are likely to undermine the outcome of the New York meeting, governments worldwide should not miss this historic moment and make clear that the health of their populations prevail over economic interests which result in an unacceptable environmental burden of disease for both national health systems and economies, in particular in low-and-middle income countries.

Open letter UN WHO NY NCD Sept 2011512

Contacts :

Annie J. Sasco, MD, DrPH
Epidemiology for Cancer prevention, Team HIV, Cancer and Global Health
University Bordeaux Segalen, France
Cell : ++33 6 74 25 43 93
annie.sasco@inserm.fr

André Cicolella
Conseiller scientifique à l’INERIS, président du Réseau Environnement Santé
Tel : 06 35 57 16 82
res.contact@free.fr

Elisabeth Ruffinengo
Advocacy Officer WECF
Tel : + 33 (0)4 50 49 97 38 / + 33 (0)6 74 77 77 00
elisabeth.ruffinengo@wecf.eu

There is also pieces in The Independent and The Telegraph

Press Release

An unprecedented 60 scientists and international environment, health and women’s organisations from around the globe have jointly written to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) stating that “action is necessary to reduce the levels of Bisphenol-A (BPA) exposure, particularly in groups at highest risk, namely young infants and pregnant mothers.”

[Quotes from some of the participating scientists and NGOs can be found towards the end of this release.]

In total, 41 NGOs and 19 scientists from 15 countries from across the globe (including 9 from the UK) have signed the letter.  The letter comes on the eve of a new scientific opinion to be released by the EFSA on the safety of Bisphenol A in food contact materials expected in early July 2010.  EFSA was requested by the European Commission to assess the latest science on Bisphenol A, and if necessary, to update the existing Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) (a specific amount  in food or drinking water that can be ingested (orally) over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk).

Bisphenol A is a mass produced chemical used in the manufacture of polycarbonate plastics that are clear and nearly shatter-proof.  It can be found in plastics used for food and beverages, such as baby bottles, sports water bottles, as an epoxy resin in canned food and drinks, plastic food storage containers, tableware and in other products, including dental sealants, and has been found to leach into food and drink.

There have been long standing concerns about the health impacts of bisphenol A, due to scientific studies that have shown it has hormone disrupting effects at extremely low levels of exposure.  Human bio-monitoring studies have shown that the vast majority of people in developed countries are exposed to Bisphenol-A.

EFSA’s previous opinions in 2007 and 2008 predominantly relied upon a handful of industry backed scientific papers that have expressed no concerns about our levels of BPA exposure.  The letter from scientists and NGOs highlights scientific criticism in academic journals regarding these papers as compared to the “several hundred peer reviewed scientific papers have been published that have highlighted potential adverse health effects associated with BPA exposures”

The letter also draws attention to some of the new studies which have raised risks of exposure relating to a potential increased likelihood of developing ‘diabetes’, ‘developmental programming’ and ‘breast cancer’.  Bisphenol A exposure at environmentally relevant levels commonly found in the environment in developed countries has also been repeatedly linked by independent university – based scientists to a number of other serious chronic health conditions.

Despite EFSA’s pivotal position in setting chemical food safety levels across the EU, Sweden and Germany have become the third and fourth most recent EU member states, alongside France and Denmark, to take action ahead of the EFSA review.

Andreas Carlgren, Sweden’s Environment Minister stated, on 11th May 2010, that “If the EU will not quickly forbid the hormone disrupting substance bisphenol in baby-bottles Sweden will precede with a national prohibition.”

The President of the German Federal Environment Agency on the 9^th June also broke from EFSA policy by issuing new guidance calling on “manufacturers, importers and users of bisphenol A to use alternative substances that pose less risk to human health and the environment in all areas of use that significantly contribute to exposure”.

Regulators in Canada and the USA have already taken action to limit BPA exposure, for example in its use in baby bottles.  As yet there has been no similar action at the European Union level.

A number of EU member states continue to back a common approach across the EU on bisphenol A.  Tim Smith, the head of the UK Food Standards Agency, declared in an internal FSA report on the 12th May, 2010 that he ‘considers it important to have an agreed position across the EU’ and that the FSA will only ‘revise our position in line with it [the EFSA Review] if it is considered necessary’ ( www.food.gov.uk/multimedia/pdfs/board/fsa100503.pdf), despite the action that is being taken elsewhere across the EU.

The EFSA have already delayed publication of its review, as explained on its website:

To give the European Commission an up-to-date overview of the safety of BPA, EFSA will now deliver a scientific opinion in early July rather than end of May. This is due to the need for the Panel to consider hundreds of studies in its review and analysis of the most recent scientific literature.

The letter from scientists and organisations opens by ‘welcoming this announcement’ issued at the 11^th hour that EFSA has finally agreed to examine hundreds of non-industry backed scientific papers.

The letter was drafted by Breast Cancer UK and Prof. Fredrick vom Saal, Curators Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia who has been awarded by his peers for his work on Bisphenol-A and is a recognised leader in this field.  The effort was also coordinated by the Brussels based Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).

Prof. vom Saal stated in response to the publication of the letter that:

“At the heart of the debate over BPA lies an outdated set of guidelines used by regulatory agencies that are based on approaches to evaluating the safety of chemicals established over 50 years ago. Thus, 21st century research approaches have provided overwhelming scientific evidence of harm in hundreds of published reports, but these findings are being rejected for consideration because they do not conform to the outdated testing guidelines.

“This has left regulatory agencies to rely entirely on industry-funded research that used ‘approved’ testing methods that are crude and insensitive, and it is not surprising that 100% of these industry-funded studies conclude that BPA causes no harm.

“The only rational path for European regulators is to take decisive action to reduce human exposure to BPA. The overwhelming nature of the total scientific evidence mandates this as a priority.”

Clare Dimmer, Chair of Trustees Breast Cancer UK and former breast cancer patient stated:

“Breast cancer is the most common cancer across Europe and has been increasing rapidly regardless of the costly and expensive efforts made by Governments to improve screening, treatment, and increase research.  It must now be time that regulators act on the science and begin to take a precautionary approach to hazardous chemicals like bisphenol-A found in our everyday products.”

Lisette van Vliet, Ph.D. the Toxics Policy Advisor at HEAL said:

“It is high time that EFSA caught up to the overwhelming science showing genuine reasons for concern about our daily exposure to BPA.”

Participating scientists and organisations were given the opportunity to provide a quote for this press release; those that responded have been included below.  This does not preclude participating organisations providing their own releases, supporting statements and additional comments.

Prof. Andrew Watterson, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group, University of Stirling, said:

“It’s worrying, considering the weight of the scientific evidence, that strong action to reduce human exposure is yet to be taken.  Hundreds of academic studies have explicitly raised the risks of developmental harm to foetuses and young children from exposure to BPA and this should dictate a strong precautionary policy response from European regulators.  If this is not forthcoming, the UK Government must intervene as other European countries are already doing so.”

Daniela Hoffmann, Chemicals Expert, GLOBAL 2000/Friends of the Earth Austria:

“EFSA has to finally acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence concerning the risk BPA poses to human health.”

Sarah Häuser, Chemicals Expert BUND / Friends of the Earth Germany:

“The existing Tolerable Daily Intake for BPA does not protect human health. In animal experiments and biomonitoring studies, BPA doses much smaller than those estimated as being safe by EFSA were linked to chronic conditions health damages like diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. It’s time to take action now.”

The Alliance for Cancer Prevention want to see acceptance of the environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer. We question how might this progress in light of the current cancer reform strategy and the absence of any vision on the primary prevention of cancer?

The newly formed Alliance is disappointed that primary prevention is not on today’s agenda. True cancer reform needs to address prevention. We would like to see the Westminster Health Forum organise a conference on primary prevention, focused on the environment and occupational risk factors for cancer.

Cancer rates are rising steadily, including among children, in the UK. Many could be prevented by making our working and living environments safer.

The Alliance is a multi stakeholder group which includes representatives from NGOs, environmental and occupational health organisation’s, trade unions, public health advocates and civil society groups, to work together on cancer prevention. The Alliance aims to challenge the existing perception of control and treatment of cancer being the best way forward and get equal recognition for primary prevention and to ensure that the cancer establishment acknowledge the environmental and occupational risk factors for preventable cancers.

Title: New Alliance launched to prevent cancer

The UK’s cancer establishment is ignoring the environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer, says the newly formed Alliance for Cancer Prevention – and in doing so ignoring thousands of the most easily preventable cancers. (1), (2)

Helen Lynn, long time campaigner and the facilitator of the new Alliance says, “There has been no movement from the Cancer Establishment on the environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer despite 14 years of accumulated evidence. It’s time for a robust voice to ask questions about this and other prevention issues so we want to announce the formation of this new Alliance.”

Despite the mountain of accumulative scientific research pointing to environmental and occupational risk factors for cancer playing a major role in the disease predisposition, onset and development, the cancer establishment is choosing to ignore this evidence.

The Alliance suggests that, what should be a debate about policy has become a debate about science. Manufactured doubt has been utilised by the cancer establishment to undermine the research which could lead to reductions in the cases of cancer by reducing environmental and occupational exposures. Government policy has been influenced to the advantage of polluters and the manufacturers of dangerous products. (3)

Both occupational and environmental Alliance member organisations voiced concern about the lack of consideration given to the Precautionary Principle before the introduction of any new industrial or household products.

Lack of action by the cancer establishment has rendered cancer policies ineffectual by focusing mainly on lifestyle factors. This fixation on ‘lifestyle’ risk factors means that cancer incidence will continue to rise given our exposure to cancer causing and promoting substances in the home, the workplace and in the wider environment.
“There’s a perception that cancer is a disease on the decline, but in fact the number of people developing the disease has reached record levels over the last decade,” says Professor Rory O’Neill of Stirling University. “Relying on cures that often don’t work and magic bullets that may never appear is a poor substitute for prevention – particularly given the UK’s relatively poor survival rates for many cancers.”
He added: “We estimate that tens of thousands each year have to endure potentially terminal diseases that could have been prevented by simple, affordable changes to the substances and processes used by industry.”(4)

At its first meeting in November the Alliance raised questions such as: how does the UK Government plan to respond to the European Partnership Against Cancer which states that: “Cancer is caused by many factors and therefore its prevention shall address on equal footing the lifestyle, occupational and environmental causes” (5) and, if the UK cancer establishment thinks the ever escalating incidence of cancer is acceptable, given its lack of acknowledgment for primary prevention. The fixation on the end point of the disease, and with detection, shows an acceptance of the status quo. Media and education politics means that the public is not being informed about the science, and therefore, cannot make informed choices or take action in connection with exposures.

The Alliance seeks to raise questions and point to the progressive work undertaken in other countries that shows just how far behind the UK cancer establishment is in thinking on cancer. One recent example is the resolution by the Endocrine Society on Endocrine Disrupting Chemical’s (EDC’s) adopted by the American Medical Association (AMA). (6)
The resolution called on the AMA to work with federal government to enact new federal policies to decrease the public’s exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. (7)

The new alliance aims to create a strong voice to question and challenge the media and education politics which means the public is not being informed about this science, and therefore cannot make informed choices or take action in connection with exposures.

Alliance members include:

GMB, Hazards Campaign, Integrated Health Trust, National Alliance of Women’s Organisations, No More Breast Cancer Campaign, Pesticides Action Network (PAN UK), Scottish Hazards Campaign, Prof. Andrew Watterson & Prof. Rory O’Neill, Occupational and Environmental Health Research Group. Stirling University, UNISON, UNITE, Breast Cancer UK, Women’s Environmental Network Scotland.

- ENDS –

Contact details: Helen Lynn, Alliance Facilitator. Mob:07960033687.

Notes to the Editor:
1. The Alliance is a multi stakeholder group which includes representatives from NGO’s, environmental and occupational health organisations, trade unions, public health advocates and civil society groups, to work together on cancer prevention. The Alliance aims to challenge the existing perception of control and treatment of cancer being the best way forward and get equal recognition for primary prevention and to ensure that the cancer charities acknowledge the environmental and occupational risk factors for preventable cancers.

2. The Cancer Establishment is a generic term for the cancer charities, the medical establishment and the government decision-making bodies on cancer.

3. Michaels, D. (2008) Doubt is Their Product. How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press.

4. Hazards Magazine cancer pages. www.hazards.org/cancer/ (Dec 2009)

5. European Commission, European Partnership for Action Against Cancer. http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_information/dissemination/diseases/cancer_partnership_en.htm

6. The American Medical Association. www.ama-assn.org

7. The Endocrine Society. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. (Dec 2009) www.endo-society.org/journals/scientificstatements/ “Endocrine-disrupting chemicals are substances in the environment that interfere with hormone biosynthesis, metabolism or action resulting in adverse developmental, reproductive, neurological and immune effects in both humans and wildlife. These chemicals are designed, produced and marketed largely for specific industrial purposes. They are also found in some natural foods and may become further concentrated as foods are processed.