Regulatory Decisions on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals Should be Based on the Principles of Endocrinology.

Center for Regenerative & Developmental Biology, and Department of Biology, Tufts University, Medford, MA. Electronic address: .
Reproductive Toxicology (Impact Factor: 2.77). 02/2013; 38. DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2013.02.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT For years, scientists from various disciplines have studied the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on the health and wellbeing of humans and wildlife. Some studies have specifically focused on the effects of low doses, i.e. those in the range that are thought to be safe for humans and/or animals. Others have focused on the existence of non-monotonic dose-response curves. These concepts challenge the way that chemical risk assessment is performed for EDCs. Continued discussions have clarified exactly what controversies and challenges remain. We address several of these issues, including why the study and regulation of EDCs should incorporate endocrine principles; what level of consensus there is for low dose effects; challenges to our understanding of non-monotonicity; and whether EDCs have been demonstrated to produce adverse effects. This discussion should result in a better understanding of these issues, and allow for additional dialogue on their impact on risk assessment.

1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The fundamental principle in regulatory toxicology is that all chemicals are toxic and that the severity of effect is proportional to the exposure level. An ancillary assumption is that there are no effects at exposures below the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), either because no effects exist or because they are not statistically resolvable, implying that they would not be adverse. Chemicals that interfere with hormones violate these principles in two important ways: dose-response relationships can be non-monotonic, which have been reported in hundreds of studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs); and effects are often observed below the LOAEL, including all environmental epidemiological studies examining EDCs. In recognition of the importance of this issue, Lagarde et al. have published the first proposal to qualitatively assess non-monotonic dose response (NMDR) relationships for use in risk assessments. Their proposal represents a significant step forward in the evaluation of complex datasets for use in risk assessments. Here, we comment on three elements of the Lagarde proposal that we feel need to be assessed more critically and present our arguments: 1) the use of Klimisch scores to evaluate study quality, 2) the concept of evaluating study quality without topical experts' knowledge and opinions, and 3) the requirement of establishing the biological plausibility of an NMDR before consideration for use in risk assessment. We present evidence-based logical arguments that 1) the use of the Klimisch score should be abandoned for assessing study quality; 2) evaluating study quality requires experts in the specific field; and 3) an understanding of mechanisms should not be required to accept observable, statistically valid phenomena. It is our hope to contribute to the important and ongoing debate about the impact of NMDRs on risk assessment with positive suggestions.
    Environmental Health 05/2015; 14(1):42. DOI:10.1186/s12940-015-0029-4 · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Experimental studies investigating the effects of endocrine disruptors frequently identify potential unconventional dose-response relationships called non-monotonic dose-response (NMDR) relationships. Standardized approaches for investigating NMDR relationships in a risk assessment context are missing. The aim of this work was to develop criteria for assessing the strength of NMDR relationships. A literature search was conducted to identify published studies that report NMDR relationships with endocrine disruptors. Fifty-one experimental studies that investigated various effects associated with endocrine disruption elicited by many substances were selected. Scoring criteria were applied by adaptation of an approach previously used for identification of hormesis-type dose-response relationships. Out of the 148 NMDR relationships analyzed, 82 were categorized with this method as having a “moderate” to “high” level of plausibility for various effects. Numerous modes of action described in the literature can explain such phenomena. NMDR can arise from numerous molecular mechanisms such as opposing effects induced by multiple receptors differing by their affinity, receptor desensitization, negative feedback with increasing dose, or dose-dependent metabolism modulation. A stepwise decision tree was developed as a tool to standardize the analysis of NMDR relationships observed in the literature with the final aim to use these results in a Risk Assessment purpose. This decision tree was finally applied to studies focused on the effects of bisphenol A.
    Environmental Health 02/2015; 14(1). DOI:10.1186/1476-069X-14-13 · 2.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDC) are chemicals responsible for disturbances in the hormonal balance of organisms. This group of chemicals includes both egzogenic and endogenic substances or their mixtures that impact functioning of natural hormones in organisms. In the available literature one can find information on the application of chromatographic and related techniques in the analysis of environmental samples for detection, identification, and quantitation of a wide spectrum of chemicals posing endocrine properties. On the other hand, more and more biotests are being developed to determine endocrine potency of environmental samples due to development of genetic engineering methods and specific detection methods of cells' response to the action of particular chemicals of interest. This article presents revisions of the most novel methods for this potency determination with application to biological elements.
    Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry 11/2014; 45(3):00-00. DOI:10.1080/10408347.2014.904731 · 2.69 Impact Factor