Search

Background: The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. Recent analyses of the EDC literature have been criticized for failing to use transparent C exposures to adverse health or environmental outcomes. Systematic review methodologies are ideal for addressing this issue as they provide transparent and consistent approaches to study selection and evaluation. Objective methods are needed for integrating the multiple streams of evidence (epidemiology, wildlife, laboratory animal, in vitro, and in silico data) that are relevant in assessing EDCs. Methods: We have developed a framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of EDC studies. The framework was designed for use with the International Program on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and World Health Organization (WHO) definition of an EDC, which requires appraisal of evidence regarding 1) association between exposure and an adverse effect, 2) association between exposure and endocrine disrupting activity, and 3) a plausible link between the adverse effect and the endocrine disrupting activity. Results: Building from existing methodologies for evaluating and synthesizing evidence, the SYRINA framework includes seven steps: 1) Formulate the problem; 2) Develop the review protocol; 3) Identify relevant evidence; 4) Evaluate evidence from individual studies; 5) Summarize and evaluate each stream of evidence; 6) Integrate evidence across all streams; 7) Draw conclusions, make recommendations, and evaluate uncertainties. The proposed method is tailored to the IPCS/WHO definition of an EDC but offers flexibility for use in the context of other definitions of EDCs. Conclusions: When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.

The essential use concept aims to better protect consumers, vulnerable groups, and the environment from the most harmful chemicals by phasing out uses considered non-essential for society. Given the lack of empirical research evaluating this novel approach for chemical management in real-world settings, the aims of the present analysis were to 1) investigate if the information provided in applications for authorisation under REACH allowed for the identification of non-essential uses of substances of very high concern (SVHCs), and 2) identify data gaps, challenges and potential needs for revising the assessment criteria to effectively implement the essential use concept in the REACH authorisation. In total, 100 uses covering 11 SVHCs were analysed. 4-(1,1,3,3-tetramethylbutyl) phenol (OPnEO) and chromium trioxide were among the most frequently used substances, covering 42% and 35% of the analysed uses. Using the current essential use criteria, 55% of all analysed uses were categorised as essential, while 10% were categorised as non-essential. Potentially, authorisations would not have been granted for the identified non-essential uses under REACH if the concept had been implemented at the time. However, for 35% of the uses it was not possible to assess their essentiality and these uses were therefore categorised as "complex." These challenges were due to the multiple purposes of the technical function, lack of detailed information on the spectrum of end-uses, and difficulties in interpreting the essential use criteria. Consequently, for a successful implementation of the essential use concept, we recommend the European Commission to develop guidance for applicants and refine the essential use criteria to ensure a transparent and resource-efficient authorisation procedure under REACH., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Borchert, Figuière, Cousins, Rudén and Ågerstrand.)

The CLP mandates manufacturers and importers to classify substances and mixtures according to hazard criteria, with notifications submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Substances meeting hazard criteria must be appropriately labelled and packaged to communicate hazards effectively. The CLP establishes hazard classification criteria but does not independently prohibit or restrict the use of hazardous chemicals. Instead, it serves as a basis for regulatory obligations in other specific regulations. This study investigates the regulatory implications of meeting hazard criteria under the CLP across EU regulations and directives listed in EU Chemicals Legislation Finder (EUCLEF). The results show that fulfilling criteria for human health hazard classes trigger regulatory obligations in the highest number of regulations/directives, with carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and reproductive toxicity (CMR) leading to obligations in 19 of 20 pieces of legislation linked to the CLP. Conversely, physical, environmental, and ozone layer hazards are associated with fewer regulations and directives, and lead to fewer prohibitions. The study underscores the pivotal role of the CLP in EU chemical legislation and the need for coherence and consistency across regulations. While regulatory obligations are primarily aimed at substances meeting hazard criteria, the variability in self-classification notifications and limitations in harmonized classification processes were observed. Moreover, the complexity of the regulatory structure poses challenges for stakeholders and policymakers, including inconsistencies, compliance difficulties, and the need for frequent revisions. Addressing these challenges is critical for enhancing regulatory effectiveness and ensuring a more coherent and harmonized approach to chemical management in the EU., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision., (Copyright © 2024 Kättström, Beronius, Boije af Gennäs, Rudén and Ågerstrand.)

Antibiotics are critical components of modern health care. Protecting their efficacy through managing the rise in antibiotic resistance is therefore a global concern. It is not known to what extent environmental pollution from antibiotics contributes to the development of resistance, but encountered concentrations are frequently above concentrations predicted to select for resistance. Hence, measures are needed to manage risks. Here, we analyse if the indirect health risks from antibiotics in the aquatic environment can be considered in the context of the EU Water Framework Directive and the setting of environmental quality standards (EQS). By scrutinising current legislation, we conclude that it is possible to take the indirect health risks from antimicrobial resistance into account when deriving EQS for substances with antibiotic activity. We base this on the following conclusions: (1) human health concerns can be the main driver when setting an EQS, (2) an EQS can be based on data not specified in the guidance document, and (3) there are no restrictions against establishing EQS using data on antimicrobial resistance properties. In addition, since antimicrobial resistance travel across borders, we see strong reasons to prioritise setting these EQS on the EU level over the national level. Even though there is no agreed-upon method for how to develop EQS protective against resistance selection, there are several suggestions available in the literature and a couple of examples of regulatory initiatives. Also, addressing antimicrobial resistance through the Water Framework Directive can act as a driving force for other applicable legislation where such risks are not considered. We end by providing a set of recommendations for the European Commission and the Members States' future work on addressing aquatic pollution and antimicrobial resistance., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Regulatory authorities rely on hazard and risk assessments performed under REACH for identifying chemicals of concern and to take action. Therefore, these assessments must be systematic and transparent. This study investigates how registrants evaluate and report data evaluations under REACH and the procedures established by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to support these data evaluations. Data on the endpoint repeated dose toxicity were retrieved from the REACH registration database for 60 substances. An analysis of these data shows that the system for registrants to evaluate data and report these evaluations is neither systematic nor transparent. First, the current framework focuses on reliability, but overlooks the equally important aspect of relevance, as well as how reliability and relevance are combined for determining the adequacy of individual studies. Reliability and relevance aspects are also confused in the ECHA guidance for read-across. Second, justifications for reliability evaluations were mainly based on studies complying with GLP and test guidelines, following the Klimisch method. This may result in GLP and guideline studies being considered reliable by default and discounting non-GLP and non-test guideline data. Third, the reported rationales for reliability were frequently vague, confusing and lacking information necessary for transparency. Fourth, insufficient documentation of a study was sometimes used as a reason for judging data unreliable. Poor reporting merely affects the possibility to evaluate reliability and should be distinguished from methodological deficiencies. Consequently, ECHA is urged to improve the procedures and guidance for registrants to evaluate data under REACH to achieve systematic and transparent risk assessments.

Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a "step change" in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA., (Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

A critical step in systematic reviews of potential health hazards is the structured evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies; risk of bias is a term often used to represent this process, specifically with respect to the evaluation of systematic errors that can lead to inaccurate (biased) results (i.e. focusing on internal validity). Systematic review methods developed in the clinical medicine arena have been adapted for use in evaluating environmental health hazards; this expansion raises questions about the scope of risk of bias tools and the extent to which they capture the elements that can affect the interpretation of results from environmental and occupational epidemiology studies and in vivo animal toxicology studies, (the studies typically available for assessment of risk of chemicals). One such element, described here as "sensitivity", is a measure of the ability of a study to detect a true effect or hazard. This concept is similar to the concept of the sensitivity of an assay; an insensitive study may fail to show a difference that truly exists, leading to a false conclusion of no effect. Factors relating to study sensitivity should be evaluated in a systematic manner with the same rigor as the evaluation of other elements within a risk of bias framework. We discuss the importance of this component for the interpretation of individual studies, examine approaches proposed or in use to address it, and describe how it relates to other evaluation components. The evaluation domains contained within a risk of bias tool can include, or can be modified to include, some features relating to study sensitivity; the explicit inclusion of these sensitivity criteria with the same rigor and at the same stage of study evaluation as other bias-related criteria can improve the evaluation process. In some cases, these and other features may be better addressed through a separate sensitivity domain. The combined evaluation of risk of bias and sensitivity can be used to identify the most informative studies, to evaluate the confidence of the findings from individual studies and to identify those study elements that may help to explain heterogeneity across the body of literature., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The aim of this review was to investigate if and how the application of weight of evidence (WoE) evaluation or systematic review (SR) in chemical risk assessment is promoted within different regulatory frameworks in the European Union. Legislative and relevant guidance documents within nine regulatory frameworks were scrutinized and compared. WoE evaluation or SR is promoted in seven of the investigated frameworks but sufficient guidance for how to perform these processes is generally lacking. None of the investigated frameworks give enough guidance for generating robust and reproducible WoE evaluations or SRs. In conclusion, the foundation for use of WoE evaluation and SR is laid in the majority of the investigated frameworks, but there is a need to provide more structured and detailed guidance. In order to make the process of developing guidance as efficient as possible, and to ensure smooth transfer of risk assessment's between frameworks if a chemical is risk assessed both as, for example, a biocide and an industrial chemical, it is recommended that guidance is developed jointly by the European regulatory agencies., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The regulatory evaluation of ecotoxicity studies for environmental risk and/or hazard assessment of chemicals is often performed using the method established by Klimisch and colleagues in 1997. The method was, at that time, an important step toward improved evaluation of study reliability, but lately it has been criticized for lack of detail and guidance, and for not ensuring sufficient consistency among risk assessors., Results: A new evaluation method was thus developed: Criteria for Reporting and Evaluating ecotoxicity Data (CRED). The CRED evaluation method aims at strengthening consistency and transparency of hazard and risk assessment of chemicals by providing criteria and guidance for reliability and relevance evaluation of aquatic ecotoxicity studies. A two-phased ring test was conducted to compare and characterize the differences between the CRED and Klimisch evaluation methods. A total of 75 risk assessors from 12 countries participated. Results show that the CRED evaluation method provides a more detailed and transparent evaluation of reliability and relevance than the Klimisch method. Ring test participants perceived it to be less dependent on expert judgement, more accurate and consistent, and practical regarding the use of criteria and time needed for performing an evaluation., Conclusions: We conclude that the CRED evaluation method is a suitable replacement for the Klimisch method, and that its use may contribute to an improved harmonization of hazard and risk assessments of chemicals across different regulatory frameworks.