Serious concerns about “Steroid hormone in fish, caution for present and future: A review", by Purba Islam et al., Toxicology Report 13 (2024) 101733”

I am referring the article titled "Steroid Hormone in fish, caution for present and future: A review", by Purba Islam et al., Toxicology Report 13 (2024) 101733. I was alarmed, because the article (a) provides erroneous information to the scientific community, and (b) it makes dangerously false claims that can potentially harm a very important food production industry, without any evidence at all. In addition, the article contains many language and format errors, and I am sorry to say that it was poorly reviewed by the referees. In reading the Abstract, which starts with the unsubstantiated “The misuse and overuse of steroid hormones in fish is an emerging problem worldwide”, I saw two specific “claims” that attracted my attention, as I was really surprised to read, which were that (a) sex steroids are “…frequently used in fish production to promote growth…” and (b) that sex steroid “…residues in the fish flesh …. cause many health hazards to consumers…". To begin with, there is no support in the scientific literature or regulatory reports that steroid hormone use in aquaculture is an emerging problem worldwide. Regarding the first claim (promoting growth), looking in Section 3.1 Growth promotion, I could see only two citations of original work that relate to the effect of steroids on fish growth, while all the rest deal with their effect on re-directing (or sex reversing) gonad development. Sex steroids have in the past and are still used in a few aquaculture fishes in order to induce sex reversal (androgens masculinize and estrogens feminize fish), in order to obtain individuals of the desirable sex. This may be done to produce homogametic males (XX) so that their sperm can be used to produce all female populations (that are never exposed to steroids), which grow better than males, or to produce all male populations (that are treated with steroids for a short period of time and months before they are harvested), which grow faster as they do no produce eggs. The effect of androgens on better growth are indirect in all of the above cases, as they act via the existence of differential growth between males and females in some species and are never used directly to promote growth. The conclusion reached by the authors is scientifically erroneous, supported only by a single cited study (#69 McBride and Fangerlund, 2009, Table 1). The authors present a very wrong idea and fail to explain thoroughly that the growth promotion of sex steroid sex-inverted fish, is due to the change of sex and not due to the administration of sex steroids, which takes place for a very short period of the fish’s life until harvest. Then on the more dangerous claim, of a human health risk, there is not a single cited study showing the presence of sex steroids in fish that were sex-inverted during early life with sex steroids. Yet, the authors make such a bold statement, that sex steroids are “…frequently used in fish production to promote growth…” and that sex steroid “…residues in the fish flesh …. cause many health hazards to consumers…”. I find this conclusion totally unsupported by the existing literature (presented or not in the article’s bibliography), but also slanderous to the world aquaculture industry, without any primary research from the author(s) in actually using steroids (and not only looking at the growth of fish produced with YY super male methods). There simply isn’t any published information from other relevant researchers to support such a claim. The article makes very serious claims against fish aquaculture, which are not true and not substantiated, and can cause a huge damage to this very significant food production industry.