Article

Is it time to end concerns over the estrogenic effects of bisphenol A?

Medical Research Council Human Reproductive Sciences Unit, Centre for Reproductive Biology, The Queen's Medical Research Institute, 47 Little France Crescent, Edinburgh EH16 4TJ, UK.
Toxicological Sciences (Impact Factor: 4.48). 03/2010; 114(1):1-4. DOI: 10.1093/toxsci/kfp299
Source: PubMed
0 Bookmarks
 · 
58 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) are a diverse group of "chemicals of emerging concern" which have attracted much interest from the research community since the 1990s. Today there is still no definitive risk assessment tool for EDCs. While some decision making organizations have attempted to design methodology guidelines to evaluate the potential risk from this broadly defined group of constituents, risk assessors still face many uncertainties and unknowns. Until a risk assessment paradigm is designed specifically for EDCs and is vetted by the field, traditional risk assessment tools may be used with caution to evaluate EDCs. In doing so, each issue of contention should be addressed with transparency in order to leverage available information and technology without sacrificing integrity or accuracy. The challenges that EDCs pose to traditional risk assessment are described in this article to assist in this process. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Journal of hazardous materials. 12/2014; 286C:589-611.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: European regulatory policy, especially in the chemicals and environmental sectors, is not as predictable, evidence-based, risk-informed, or clear as it could be. There are a number of reasons for this, all somewhat related to the new more adversarial model of regulation. This includes the involvement of influential environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and member states (such as Denmark and Sweden) that are highly active in environmental and chemical control. In addition, we see the rise of the campaigning journalist or newspaper that often bases their articles on emotions rather than scientific facts – the UK Daily Mail newspaper is a typical example. Finally, a number of academics, think tanks, and stakeholders tend to amplify their research findings if there is a nice ‘news hook’ (such as this chemical may cause cancer, or this pharmaceutical is unsafe) without presenting their research findings within a wider context. In this article, I first briefly outline the history of environmental policy-making in Europe then discuss the rise of the new model of adversarial regulation. Secondly, I provide evidence of some of the unintended consequences of the new model, and give a couple of case study examples. In the concluding part of the essay, I offer possible solutions that could aid in helping to make chemical and environmental control policy in Europe more evidence-based and risk-informed.
    Journal of Risk Research 10/2014; 17(9). · 1.27 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Recent EU legislation has introduced endocrine disrupting properties as a hazard-based "cut-off" criterion for the approval of active substances as pesticides and biocides. Currently, no specific science-based approach for the assessment of substances with endocrine disrupting properties has been agreed upon, although this new legislation provides interim criteria based on classification and labelling. Different proposals for decision making on potential endocrine disrupting properties in human health risk assessment have been developed by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and other regulatory bodies. All these frameworks, although differing with regard to hazard characterization, include a toxicological assessment of adversity of the effects, the evaluation of underlying modes/mechanisms of action in animals and considerations concerning the relevance of effects to humans. Three options for regulatory decision making were tested upon 39 pesticides for their applicability and to analyze their potential impact on the regulatory status of active substances that are currently approved for use in Europe: Option 1, based purely on hazard identification (adversity, mode of action, and the plausibility that both are related); Option 2, based on hazard identification and additional elements of hazard characterisation (severity and potency); Option 3, based on the interim criteria laid down in the recent EU pesticides legislation. Additionally, the data analysed in this study were used to address the questions, which parts of the endocrine system were affected by ED most frequently, which studies were the most sensitive in detection of ED effects and whether no observed adverse effect levels were observed for substance with ED properties. The results demonstrate that a combination of criteria for hazard identification with additional criteria of hazard characterization allows prioritising and differentiating between substances with regard to their regulatory concern. It is proposed to integrate these elements into a decision matrix to be used within a weight of evidence approach for the toxicological categorisation of relevant endocrine disruptors and to consider all parts of the endocrine system for regulatory decision making on endocrine disruption.
    Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 09/2014; 70(3). · 2.14 Impact Factor