Background and objectives

The pesticide metabolite p,p'-DDE has been associated with left ventricular (LV) mass and known risk factors for LV hypertrophy in humans and in experimental models. We hypothesized that the associations of p,p'-DDE with LV hypertrophy risk factors, namely elevated glucose, adiposity and hypertension, mediate the association of p,p'-DDE with LV mass.

Methods

p,p'-DDE was measured in plasma from 70-year-old subjects (n = 988) of the Prospective Study of the Vasculature in Uppsala Seniors (PIVUS). When these subjects were 70-, 75- and 80- years old, LV characteristics were measured by echocardiography, while fasting glucose, body mass index (BMI) and blood pressure were assessed with standard clinical techniques.

Results

We found that p,p'-DDE levels were associated with increased fasting glucose, BMI, hypertension and LV mass in separate models adjusted for sex. Structural equation modeling revealed that the association between p,p'-DDE and LV mass was almost entirely mediated by BMI (70%), and also by hypertension (19%).

Conclusion

The obesogenic effect of p,p'-DDE is a major determinant responsible for the association of p,p'-DDE with LV mass.

We present a detailed response to the critique of "State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals 2012" (UNEP/WHO, 2013) by financial stakeholders, authored by Lamb et al. (2014). Lamb et al.'s claim that UNEP/WHO (2013) does not provide a balanced perspective on endocrine disruption is based on incomplete and misleading quoting of the report through omission of qualifying statements and inaccurate description of study objectives, results and conclusions. Lamb et al. define extremely narrow standards for synthesizing evidence which are then used to dismiss the UNEP/WHO 2013 report as flawed. We show that Lamb et al. misuse conceptual frameworks for assessing causality, especially the Bradford-Hill criteria, by ignoring the fundamental problems that exist with inferring causality from empirical observations. We conclude that Lamb et al.'s attempt of deconstructing the UNEP/WHO (2013) report is not particularly erudite and that their critique is not intended to be convincing to the scientific community, but to confuse the scientific data. Consequently, it promotes misinterpretation of the UNEP/WHO (2013) report by non-specialists, bureaucrats, politicians and other decision makers not intimately familiar with the topic of endocrine disruption and therefore susceptible to false generalizations of bias and subjectivity.