Endocrine Disruptors

Law and science combine in the estimation of risks from endocrine disruptors (EDs) and actions for their regulation. For both, dose–response models are the causal link between exposure and probability (or percentage change) of adverse response. The evidence that leads to either regulations or judicial decrees is affected by uncertainty and limited knowledge, raising difficult policy issues that we enumerate and discuss. In the United States, some courts have dealt with EDs, but causation based on animal studies has been a stumbling block for plaintiffs seeking compensation, principally because those courts opt for epidemiological evidence. The European Union (EU) has several regulatory tools and ongoing research on the risks associated with bisphenol A, under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Regulation and other regulations or directives. The integration of a vast (in kind and in scope) number of research papers into a statement of causation for either policy or to satisfy legal requirements, in both the United States and the EU, relies on experts. We outline the discursive dilemma and issues that may affect consensus-based results and a Bayesian causal approach that accounts for the evolution of information, yielding both value of information and flexibility associated with public choices.