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.

Structural and functional brain changes in middle-aged type 2 diabetic patients: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is an emerging risk factor for cognitive impairment. Whether this impairment is a direct effect of this metabolic disorder on brain function, a consequence of vascular disease, or both, remains unknown. Structural and functional neuroimaging studies in patients with T2DM could help to elucidate this question. OBJECTIVE We designed a cross-sectional study comparing 25 T2DM patients with 25 age- and gender-matched healthy control participants. Clinical information, APOE genotype, lipid and glucose analysis, structural cerebral magnetic resonance imaging including voxel-based morphometry, and F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography were obtained in all subjects. METHODS Gray matter densities and metabolic differences between groups were analyzed using statistical parametric mapping. In addition to comparing the neuroimaging profiles of both groups, we correlated neuroimaging findings with HbA1c levels, duration of T2DM, and insulin resistance measurement (HOMA-IR) in the diabetic patients group. Results: Patients with T2DM presented reduced gray matter densities and reduced cerebral glucose metabolism in several fronto-temporal brain regions after controlling for various vascular risk factors. Furthermore, within the T2DM group, longer disease duration, and higher HbA1c levels and HOMA-IR were associated with lower gray matter density and reduced cerebral glucose metabolism in fronto-temporal regions. CONCLUSION In agreement with previous reports, our findings indicate that T2DM leads to structural and metabolic abnormalities in fronto-temporal areas. Furthermore, they suggest that these abnormalities are not entirely explained by the role of T2DM as a cardiovascular risk factor.