Who is asking about the regulation of indoctrination disrupters? Nearly 100 European and American scientists on Tuesday denounced the “industrial interests” which “deliberately distort scientific evidence” to prevent this regulation.
“The project to establish such a regulation in the European Union is actively opposed by scientists strongly linked to industrial interests, producing the impression of a lack of consensus where there is no Scientific controversy “, say the signatories of a tribune published by Le Monde.
The “manufacture of doubt”
This method of “manufacture of doubt” – deliberately distorting scientific evidence to create a false impression of controversy – is regularly used when scientific discoveries touch “powerful industrial interests”, scientists point out, among which the CNRS endocrinologist Barbara Demeneix or the toxicologist of Brunel University of Britain Andreas Kortenkamp.
The precedents of the tobacco industry, the agrochemical sector or global warming have “delayed preventive actions and had serious consequences for the health of the populations and the environment”, they warn.
According to them, “the overwhelming majority of scientists actively engaged in the investigation of the causes (of the increase in diseases related to the hormonal system) agree that several factors contribute, including chemicals capable of interfering With the hormonal system “, called endocrine disruptors.
For effective regulation
While the “only solution” to tackle these deleterious effects is “preventing exposure to chemicals through more effective regulation”, the signatories are “concerned about the regulatory options proposed by Brussels”.
The publication of this rostrum comes at a time when the European Union is having difficulty in agreeing on a definition of endocrine disrupters, which should make it possible to regulate their use.
With a delay of over two years, the Commission proposed a definition in June that defines an endocrine disruptor as a substance with undesirable effects on health and the hormonal system, and the link between the two is proven.
This proposal “requires a much higher level of evidence than for other hazardous substances, such as carcinogens. In practice, it will be very difficult to recognize a dangerous substance as an endocrine disruptor, “warns the panel.