A silent but epic battle is waging in the pages of toxicology journals over the use of science in public health policy.A controversial editorial published in 14 scientific journals this fall argues that "scientifically unfounded precaution" is driving the EU's recent push to regulate endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)(e.g., Bisphenol A ). ( Previously .) The proposed rules " would have sweeping, global ramifications because all companies that sell a variety of products in Europe would have to comply."Of the 18 toxicology journal editors who signed the editorial, only one had no known links to industry Over a hundredscientists and journal editors have subsequently joined in two rebuttals , one stating: "Thousands of published studies have revealed health effects of EDCs on wildlife and laboratory animals, and moreover, have shown associations of EDCs with effects in humans. Many of these studies have been reviewed recently by The Endocrine Society, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and World Health Organization (WHO), and other independent scientists. The conclusions presented in each of these documents are extraordinarily consistent: Like hormones, EDCs are active at very low doses and can induce a range of adverse health outcomes, many of which are not examined in traditional toxicology assays. In sum, these reports point to the conclusion that EDCs pose a global health threat."Signatory Andrea Gore, editor-in-chief ofand a toxicology and endocrine researcher at the University of Texas in Austin, called it “possibly the most remarkable experience in my career”.