Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Uses of ‘Good Laboratory Practices’ by regulated industry and agencies, and the safety of bisphenol A
  1. Anthony C Tweedale
  1. Correspondence to Anthony C Tweedale, R.I.S.K. Consultancy, PB 617, Brussels-1 1000, Belgium; ttweed{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

As the argument about the risk of the ubiquitous plastic chemical bisphenol A (BPA) continues,1 we should recall that every toxic chemical is regulated the same way: with its key safety data supplied by the manufacturer with typically millions to billions of revenue a year riding on that safety question.

In fact, for many years no chemical risk assessment (RA) performed for premarketing safety testing has used any but the data supplied by the chemical's manufacturer, for the key toxicity studies which determine a chemical's alleged low or no observable adverse effect level (L/NOAEL) (nor have many RAs on chemicals already on the market). Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed, published findings—of much higher quality than the industry's financially conflicted data—have been ignored.

I have observed this data exclusion in hundreds of RAs. For dozens of existing chemicals, I have compared these alleged L/NOAELs of industry with the toxicity studies of independent investigators. In every case, industry's claims of a safe dose are falsified by independent academia. Indeed, reviews always find a strong correlation of chemical industry funding with published findings of safety,2–5 while …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests The author receives consultation fees from NGOs who advocate for the public's interest in health.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.