Comments on: Endocrine disruptors: science is more potent than politics EU news and policy debates across languages Mon, 08 Apr 2019 14:38:46 +0000 hourly 1 By: David Zaruk Thu, 15 Sep 2016 12:17:58 +0000 I am a little lost on the points in this spitting rage Evil Twin – hazard identification is the first, small step in risk management. If we recognise that your smart phone emits low levels of radiation, would you then mind if I take it away from you? Only an idiot would accept that on the basis of a mere hazard ID.
So what is the point of potency? – it is clear that HRT and birth control pills are endocrine disruptors – they were made to do that. When they are peed out into our water systems, maybe we should consider the effect they have on wildlife. Also coffee, humus and soy – known EDCs – should babies be fed soy milk? Vegans don’t want to have this conversation. So the activists (whom I suppose you kneel before) have us focused on plastics and pesticides – suspected EDCs at ridiculously low exposure levels … welcome to the Age of Stupid.
More disturbing – we seem to have been locked in a debate on how to define and measure EDCs – didn’t we forget the big question. Is endocrine disruption happening to humans, at what level and should we be concerned? Outside of bad, non-replicable activist science, I have not seen a clear answer to this question.

By: cjborgert Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:59:44 +0000 The EURACTIV site appears to not accept URLs. I will work to resolve this through the editorial office.

By: cjborgert Wed, 14 Sep 2016 17:56:50 +0000 The authors regret that the link provided by EURACTIV does not work. Other hyperlinks were removed from Editorial as well.
The names and affiliations of the signatories to this editorial can be found here:
Our comment to the EC is found here:

By: Evil Twin Wed, 14 Sep 2016 10:24:35 +0000 I can’t believe you publish this stuff. These “scientists” have no idea of how EU Regulation works. From classification and labeling to REACH and pesticides. Potency? What is the point of potency in hazard identification? This is stupid!
Euractive, you should check what these “scientists” (often financed by lobbying organisations such as the Risk Forum).
Note also that this “Scientists for Scientific European Commission Regulation” what is it? A newly created lobbying organisation paid by who?