Why Public Health Agencies Cannot Depend on Good Laboratory Practices as a Criterion for Selecting Data: The Case of Bisphenol A

In their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world. OBJECTIVES: We reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, peer-reviewed for publication in leading journals, subject to independent replication, but rejected by the U.S. FDA for regulatory purposes. DISCUSSION: Although the U.S. FDA and EFSA have deemed two industry-funded GLP studies of BPA to be superior to hundreds of studies funded by the U.S. NIH and NIH counterparts in other countries, the GLP studies on which the agencies based their decisions have serious conceptual and methodologic flaws. In addition, the U.S. FDA and EFSA have mistakenly assumed that GLP yields valid and reliable scientific findings (i.e., "good science"). Their rationale for favoring GLP studies over hundreds of publically funded studies ignores the central factor in determining the reliability and validity of scientific findings, namely, independent replication, and use of the most appropriate and sensitive state-of-the-art assays, neither of which is an expectation of industry-funded GLP research. CONCLUSIONS: Public health decisions should be based on studies using appropriate protocols with appropriate controls and the most sensitive assays, not GLP. Relevant NIH-funded research using state-of-the-art techniques should play a prominent role in safety evaluations of chemicals.

Status of radiation protection at different hospitals in Nepal.

Nepal has a long history of medical radiology since1923 but unfortunately, we still do not have any Radiation Protection Infrastructure to control the use of ionizing radiations in the various fields. The objective of this study was an assessment of the radiation protection in medical uses of ionizing radiation. Twenty-eight hospitals with diagnostic radiology facility were chosen for this study according to patient loads, equipment and working staffs. Radiation surveys were also done at five different radiotherapy centers. Questionnaire for radiation workers were used; radiation dose levels were measured and an inventory of availability of radiation equipment made. A corollary objective of the study was to create awareness in among workers on possible radiation health hazard and risk. It was also deemed important to know the level of understanding of the radiation workers in order to initiate steps towards the establishment of Nepalese laws, regulation and code of radiological practice in this field. Altogether, 203 Radiation workers entertained the questionnaire, out of which 41 are from the Radiotherapy and 162 are from diagnostic radiology. The radiation workers who have participated in the questionnaire represent more than 50% of the radiation workers working in this field in Nepal. Almost all X-ray, CT and Mammogram installations were built according to protection criteria and hence found safe. Radiation dose level at the reference points for all the five Radiotherapy centers are within safe limit. Around 65% of the radiation workers have never been monitored for radiation. There is no quality control program in any of the surveyed hospitals except radiotherapy facilities.

Nutrición enteral en el paciente neurológico: ¿es suficiente el contenido en vitamina D en las fórmulas de uso habitual?

INTRODUCTION Vitamin D deficiency produces inadequate bone mineralization, proximal muscle weakness, abnormal gait and increased risk of falls and fractures. Moreover, in epidemiological studies, has been associated with increased risk of cancer, autoimmune diseases, type 1 and 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases and depression. When synthesis through the skin by sun exposure is not possible and the patient can not eat by mouth, as in the advanced stages of various neurological diseases, the supply of vitamin D has to be done by enteral nutrition. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study is to review the role of vitamin D in a common group of neurological conditions that often require artificial nutrition and analyze whether the vitamin D of different enteral nutrition formulas is adequate to meet the needs of this group of patients. RESULTS Numerous studies have shown the association between vitamin D deficiency and increased incidence of dementia, stroke and other neurodegenerative diseases. Interventions aimed to increase levels of vit. D and its effects on functional (falls, pain, quality of life) and cardiovascular goals (cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular risk factors) have obtained as highlight data a clear reduction of falls and fractures, while the evidence for the other parameters studied is still limited and inconsistent. The content of calcium and vitamin D of enteral formulas is legislated in our country. The total amount of vitamin D for a daily intake of 1,500-2,000 kcal ranges between 300 and 1,600 IU/d (mean ± SD: 32.9 ± 8.5 mg/100 kcal) in the complete formulas for enteral nutrition most commonly used. 50% of the diets studied, for an intake of 2,000 kcal/d, and 90% for an intake of 1,500 kcal/d, provide less than 600 IU/d of vitamin D. DISCUSSION Some revised recently guidelines published recommendations of daily intake of vitamin D. The document published by the U.S. Institute of Medicine recommended for adults between 19 and 70 years, 600 IU/d and up from 70, proposes 800 IU/d of vitamin D. These amounts are deemed insufficient by other scientific societies to state that to achieve blood levels of 25 (OH) D equal or greater than 30 ng/ml may be required a daily intake of 1,500-2,000 IU and a number two or three times higher if previous deficiency exists. CONCLUSIONS Further controlled studies are needed to ascertain which is the appropriate dose of vitamin D in advanced stages of neurological disease, where sun exposure is difficult and unlikely. We suggest that the vitamin D content should probably be reconsidered in enteral nutrition formulas, which, in light of recent publications appear as clearly insufficient for standard energy intakes (1,500-2,000 kcal).