Endocrine disruptors are no longer a niche topic reserved for scientists. Over the past decade, scientific studies have multiplied, health authorities have raised concerns, and consumers have become increasingly aware of their presence in everyday products, from cosmetics and food packaging to household cleaners and personal care items.
Yet one phenomenon stands out: silence.
Recently, I reached out to a wide range of companies, from multinational corporations to smaller brands. My objective was simple: to understand what concrete actions they are taking to reduce, or eliminate the use of endocrine-disrupting substances in their products.
The questions were clear.
The public health stakes are equally clear.
The answers, however, never came.
Or rather, they simply never arrived.
This silence deserves attention. It is not, in itself, proof of inaction. Companies may have many legitimate reasons for choosing not to respond. But when this lack of communication becomes widespread on an issue that directly concerns public health, it raises an important question:
Why is it so difficult to obtain transparent commitments?
We live in an era in which companies communicate extensively about their environmental impact, sustainability goals, and corporate social responsibility. Annual ESG reports have become standard practice, and brands proudly showcase their climate initiatives and ethical commitments.
Yet when the conversation turns to chemicals capable of interfering with the human endocrine system, the dialogue often becomes remarkably quiet.
This is particularly striking because endocrine disruptors are increasingly recognized as a significant public health concern. Scientific research has explored potential links between exposure to certain endocrine-disrupting chemicals and reproductive disorders, hormone-related cancers, metabolic diseases, developmental disorders, and neurological effects. While research continues to refine our understanding of exposure levels and biological mechanisms, the issue is now widely acknowledged as one of the major environmental health challenges of our time.
So why the silence?
Acknowledging a problem may require reformulating products, redesigning supply chains, investing in safer alternatives, or accepting a level of transparency that exposes industrial decisions to public scrutiny.
There is another, often less visible, factor.
Lobbying.
Interest groups play a legitimate role in democratic societies by providing expertise and participating in public policy discussions. However, numerous academics, investigative journalists, NGOs, and public health experts have documented how certain industrial sectors, including parts of the chemical, pesticide, plastics, and cosmetics industries, have actively sought to influence regulatory debates surrounding endocrine-disrupting chemicals.
This influence does not necessarily prevent regulation. More often, it contributes to delaying legislative action, requesting additional studies, challenging scientific methodologies, or advocating for the continued use of substances until their risks are considered beyond dispute.
This dynamic has been observed in several regulatory discussions within the European Union and elsewhere, where the process of identifying and restricting endocrine disruptors has often taken years despite growing scientific evidence.
Meanwhile, consumers continue to purchase products without always having access to clear information about their ingredients or the choices manufacturers have made regarding potentially hazardous substances.
Silence then becomes a form of communication.
Choosing not to answer allows uncertainty to persist. It avoids making public commitments that could later be measured, evaluated, or questioned.
Yet trust is built precisely through transparency.
Explaining where a company stands, acknowledging challenges, describing progress already made, or openly discussing existing limitations is far more constructive than remaining silent.
Consumers are not asking for perfection.
They are asking for honesty.
Public health deserves better than silence.
If companies have already begun transitioning toward safer alternatives, they should demonstrate it.
If they face scientific, technical, or economic challenges, they should explain them.
If they have not yet taken meaningful action, they should have the courage to acknowledge it.
Silence is not evidence of wrongdoing.
But neither is it an answer.
When questions concern substances that may affect the health of millions of people, refusing to engage only fuels uncertainty.
Transparency does not require perfection.
It requires openness.
And openness is the foundation upon which public trust is built.
Because when dialogue disappears, trust inevitably follows.