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.

Niveles de anticuerpos bactericidas frente a meningococo C tras la vacunación de niños de 2 a 6 años de edad en Andalucía.

BACKGROUND In 1997, 18.5% of the cases of Meningococcal Disease caused b serogroup C in Andalusia were children between 2 and 4 years of age; ages where the initial immune response and the duration of the capsular A + C meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine is less than in older age groups. Research was designed in order to measure the immune response produced by this vaccine in children from 2 to 6 years of age and to compare it with the natural immunity present in unvaccinated children. METHODS I. Dual monitoring study: a) groups of children vaccinated previously and control groups, b) groups of children who were going to be vaccinated, for pre and post-vaccination (1, 6 and 12 months) analysis and a control group. II. The bactericidal activity was measured according to the standardised protocol of the CDC with regard to the strain of N. meningitidis C-11. The sera with bactericidal activity (TAB) > 1:8 were considered to be protective. RESULTS 1 and 2 months following vaccination, the proportion of TAB > 1:8 was significantly higher than that of the control group (65.6% and 73% in comparison to 2.2% and 12%). In the pre-vaccine and post-vaccine (after 6, 7, 12 and 13 months) verification, no significant difference between vaccinated individuals and controls was observed. CONCLUSIONS The differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals 1 and 2 months following vaccination indicate seroconversion in the vaccinated individuals. For the age group of between 2 to 6 years of age, the bactericidal activity acquired decline quickly, as, after 6 months, differences between this group and the control group are no longer observed.