Scientists Debunk "Low Dose" Hypothesis in New Report

Related articles

New York, NY -- December 11, 2006. The frequently-made claim that exposure to low doses of environmental chemicals is often more hazardous than exposure to high doses of the same chemical is false. So says a peer-reviewed report released this today by a national science panel. Proponents of the "low dose theory" or the "endocrine disruptor hypothesis" argue that tiny doses of chemicals can be harmful, and they demand the removal of such chemicals from a variety of consumer products.

The scientific evidence that supposedly supports the "low dose hypothesis" is weak and unconvincing, according to Are "Low Dose" Health Effects of Chemicals Real? by scientists and physicians associated with the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH).

Are "Low Dose" Health Effects of Chemicals Real? discusses reports about the effects of the chemical bisphenol A (BPA), the most widely studied compound, to demonstrate the weak scientific evidence supporting the low dose hypothesis. In particular, scientific studies of the effects of BPA on reproduction or development have presented conflicting results, or have been performed on cells in culture or on animals. The results of these types of experiments cannot be directly extrapolated to humans.

Dr. Gilbert Ross, ACSH's medical director, points out that "the public belief in the 'low dose hypothesis' is an example of the truism that people will believe something if it's repeated often enough. The scientific support for this concept is weak and unreliable and certainly should not be used to set public policy about environmental chemicals."

Are “Low Dose” Health Effects of Chemicals Real? is based on a technical paper, to be published in the International Journal of Toxicology, by Dr. Michael Kamrin, professor emeritus of toxicology at Michigan State University.


Gilbert Ross 212-362-7044 Ext.242

The American Council on Science and Health is an independent, non-profit consumer education organization concerned with issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, lifestyle, the environment and health. For more information visit or

UPDATE: Rosen's reply to the Organic Center's reaction.