Search

Abstract: To use and implement an assessment scheme for the evaluation of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals in ecotoxicology, the types of effect need to be agreed. Effects that merit further consideration in this context should fulfil the following three criteria: caused by an endocrine mode of action, be adverse, and be relevant at the population level to reflect the protection goal of ecotoxicological assessments. Thereafter, a comparison of effect values, regardless of the causative mechanisms, should be made, firstly to determine if endocrine toxicity generates the lowest endpoint within a taxon, and secondly if it is the lowest endpoint compared to that of other taxa living in the same compartment. These comparisons inform on two levels of specificity and determine if endocrine-mediated side-effects determine the ecotoxicological profile of a chemical. Various quantitative measures for the assessment of potency are also presented, which could assist in determining how to handle substances in the risk assessment when a regulatory concern is identified. Finally, derogation criteria should be defined for compounds that were designed as endocrine disruptors for non-vertebrates and those for which there is ‘negligible exposure’. This paper discusses and provides proposals on how to apply these concepts for assessment of substances. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Ecotoxicity testing of pesticide active ingredients and formulated plant protection products (PPPs) prior to their commercial use is required by authorities around the world. Such studies are important for the conduct of risk assessments to protect wildlife and the environment, but they should only be conducted when their use is scientifically justified. One test of questionable scientific merit is the chronic fish toxicity test when conducted with formulated PPPs, which is a potential requirement under European legislation: chronic exposure to the formulated product per se rarely occurs in the environment and therefore it is generally not possible to use the data from chronic formulation studies in a meaningful risk assessment. A recent survey of European crop protection companies to explore the scientific merits and regulatory drivers for chronic fish toxicity studies has shown that current practice in deciding on the need for chronic fish toxicity testing of formulated PPPs varies substantially between companies. The most commonly cited reason for conducting such studies was solely to meet regulatory requirements. We conclude that chronic formulation testing is rarely if ever scientifically justified, and recommend that the forthcoming revision of the EU Aquatic Toxicology Guidance Document takes account of this by including a requirement that justification must be provided for conducting the test, rather than the current situation where the onus is on the registrant to provide a justification for not conducting the test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]