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.

The effect of colostrum source (goat vs. sheep) and timing of the first colostrum feeding (2h vs. 14h after birth) on body weight and immune status of artificially reared newborn lambs.

Several factors can affect lamb body weight (BW) and immune status during the first days of life, including colostrum source and timing of the first colostrum feeding. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of colostrum source (goat or sheep) and timing of the first colostrum feeding (2 or 14h after birth) on lamb BW and immune status. In this study, 40 lambs were removed from their dams at birth and randomly assigned into 4 groups of 10 lambs each. Lambs were subsequently fed at 2 or 14h after birth with goat or sheep colostrum. Blood samples and BW recording were performed before feeding. Blood plasma was used to measure the immunoglobulin concentration (IgG and IgM), chitotriosidase activity, and complement system activity (total and alternative pathways). In general, no differences in any of the measured variables were observed among the 4 groups, indicating that neither colostrum source nor timing of the first colostrum feeding had an effect on these variables. These findings may improve management on lamb farms that raise animals under artificial conditions, because our results indicate that it is not necessary to feed colostrum to lambs immediately after birth and that goat colostrum may be used to feed newborn lambs.