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.

High levels of Bifidobacteria are associated with increased levels of anthocyanin microbial metabolites: a randomized clinical trial.

The health benefits associated with the consumption of polyphenol-rich foods have been studied in depth, however, the full mechanism of action remains unknown. One of the proposed mechanisms is through microbiota interaction. In the present study, we aimed to explore the relationship between changes in fecal microbiota and changes in urinary phenolic metabolites after wine interventions. Nine participants followed a randomized, crossover, controlled interventional trial. After the washout period, they received red wine, dealcoholized red wine or gin for 20 days each. Polyphenol metabolites (n > 60) in urine were identified and quantified by UPLC-MS/MS and the microbial content of fecal samples was quantified by real-time quantitative PCR. Interventions with both red wine and dealcoholized red wine increased the fecal concentration of Bifidobacterium, Enterococcus and Eggerthella lenta, compared to gin intervention and baseline. When participants were categorized in tertiles of changes in fecal bacteria, those in the highest tertile of Bifidobacteria had higher urinary concentration changes in syringic acid, p-coumaric acid, 4-hydroxybenzoic acid and homovanillic acid (all anthocyanin metabolites) than those in tertile 1 (P < 0.05, all). In addition, changes of Bifidobacteria correlated positively with changes of these metabolites (r = 0.5-0.7, P < 0.05, all). Finally, the 68.5% changes in Bifidobacteria can be predicted by syringic acid and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid changes. This study confirms the important role of polyphenols as bacterial substrates and their modulatory capacity as an important field in the research of new products with prebiotic and probiotic characteristics for the food industry.