Search

The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU. © 2013 Bergman et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Objectives: In this commentary we analyze how much data will in fact be generated within REACH. Conclusions: We conclude that the data requirements for many end points still have not been determined but depend on prioritization criteria and waiving practices that will be decided in the years to come. We propose six important steps toward an improved REACH: a) Clarify prioritization and waiving criteria. Implement decisions to ensure that sufficient data are obtained to make first hazard assessments of as many substances and end points as possible. b) Increase data requirements. Introduce data requirements similar to those currently required for substances produced or imported in quantities of > or = 10 metric tons/year for substances produced or imported in quantities of > or = 1 metric tons/year. c) Develop the tests and approaches needed to satisfy the information requirements taking into account resource limitations and the aim to reduce animal testing. d) Promote substitution of high risk chemicals. Create an effective process for identifying substances of very high concern and for making the appropriate risk management decisions for these substances. e) Address the control of substances incorporated in articles. And f) acknowledge uncertainties. Systematically report lack of data and include this as a basis for risk management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.)

This work presents a case study in applying a systematic review framework (SYRINA) to the identification of chemicals as endocrine disruptors. The suitability and performance of the framework is tested with regard to the widely accepted World Health Organization definition of an endocrine disruptor (ED). The endocrine disrupting potential of triphenyl phosphate (TPP), a well-studied flame retardant reported to exhibit various endocrine related effects was assessed. We followed the 7 steps of the SYRINA framework, articulating the research objective via Populations, Exposures, Comparators, Outcomes (PECO) statements, performed literature search and screening, conducted study evaluation, performed data extraction and summarized and integrated the evidence. Overall, 66 studies, consisting of in vivo , in vitro and epidemiological data, were included. We concluded that triphenyl phosphate could be identified as an ED based on metabolic disruption and reproductive function. We found that the tools used in this case study and the optimizations performed on the framework were suitable to assess properties of EDs. A number of challenges and areas for methodological development in systematic appraisal of evidence relating to endocrine disrupting potential were identified; significant time and effort were needed for the analysis of in vitro mechanistic data in this case study, thus increasing the workload and time needed to perform the systematic review process. Further research and development of this framework with regards to grey literature (non-peer-reviewed literature) search, harmonization of study evaluation methods, more consistent evidence integration approaches and a pre-defined method to assess links between adverse effect and endocrine activity are recommended. It would also be advantageous to conduct more case studies for a chemical with less data than TPP.

Background: In the European Union (EU), the safety assessment of plant protection products relies to a large extent on toxicity studies commissioned by the companies producing them. By law, all performed studies must be included in the dossier submitted to authorities when applying for approval or renewal of the active substance., Methods: For one type of toxicity, i.e. developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), we evaluated if studies submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had also been disclosed to EU authorities., Results: We identified 35 DNT studies submitted to the U.S. EPA and with the corresponding EU dossiers available. Of these, 9 DNT studies (26%) were not disclosed by the pesticide company to EU authorities. For 7 of these studies, we have identified an actual or potential regulatory impact., Conclusions: We conclude that (1) non-disclosure of DNT studies to EU authorities, in spite of clear legal requirements, seems to be a recurring phenomenon, (2) the non-disclosure may introduce a bias in the regulatory risk assessment, and (3) without full access to all performed toxicity studies, there can be no reliable safety evaluation of pesticides by EU authorities. We suggest that EU authorities should cross-check their data sets with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. In addition, applications for pesticide approval should be cross-checked against lists of studies performed at test facilities operating under Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), to ensure that all studies have been submitted to authorities. Furthermore, rules should be amended so that future studies should be commissioned by authorities rather than companies. This ensures the authorities' knowledge of existing studies and prevents the economic interest of the company from influencing the design, performance, reporting and dissemination of studies. The rules or practices should also be revised to ensure that non-disclosure of toxicity studies carries a significant legal risk for pesticide companies., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Convergent evidence associates exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) with major human diseases, even at regulation-compliant concentrations. This might be because humans are exposed to EDC mixtures, whereas chemical regulation is based on a risk assessment of individual compounds. Here, we developed a mixture-centered risk assessment strategy that integrates epidemiological and experimental evidence. We identified that exposure to an EDC mixture in early pregnancy is associated with language delay in offspring. At human-relevant concentrations, this mixture disrupted hormone-regulated and disease-relevant regulatory networks in human brain organoids and in the model organisms Xenopus leavis and Danio rerio , as well as behavioral responses. Reinterrogating epidemiological data, we found that up to 54% of the children had prenatal exposures above experimentally derived levels of concern, reaching, for the upper decile compared with the lowest decile of exposure, a 3.3 times higher risk of language delay.

Humans are continuously exposed to chemicals with suspected or proven endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Risk management of EDCs presents a major unmet challenge because the available data for adverse health effects are generated by examining one compound at a time, whereas real-life exposures are to mixtures of chemicals. In this work, we integrate epidemiological and experimental evidence toward a whole mixture strategy for risk assessment. To illustrate, we conduct the following four steps in a case study: (1) identification of single EDCs ("bad actors")-measured in prenatal blood/urine in the SELMA study-that are associated with a shorter anogenital distance (AGD) in baby boys; (2) definition and construction of a "typical" mixture consisting of the "bad actors" identified in Step 1; (3) experimentally testing this mixture in an in vivo animal model to estimate a dose-response relationship and determine a point of departure (i.e., reference dose [RfD]) associated with an adverse health outcome; and (4) use a statistical measure of "sufficient similarity" to compare the experimental RfD (from Step 3) to the exposure measured in the human population and generate a "similar mixture risk indicator" (SMRI). The objective of this exercise is to generate a proof of concept for the systematic integration of epidemiological and experimental evidence with mixture risk assessment strategies. Using a whole mixture approach, we could find a higher rate of pregnant women under risk (13%) when comparing with the data from more traditional models of additivity (3%), or a compound-by-compound strategy (1.6%)., (© 2019 Society for Risk Analysis.)

Toxicity studies on chemicals registered under the European Union's Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation are provided as summaries instead of as a full study report. Because the registration data are used by regulatory agencies to identify chemicals of concern, the study summaries must accurately reflect the information in studies. A "study summary" should include sufficient information on the objectives, methods, results, and conclusions in the full study report in order for the relevance of the study to be determined. Sometimes a "robust study summary" is required, which should contain more detailed information to enable an independent assessment of the study. The aim of the present investigation is to examine how well published toxicity papers were reflected in study summaries submitted by registrants under REACH. Summaries of 20 published studies (peer-reviewed studies, including 1 abstract) were examined and broad categories of various types of observed differences were derived. The extent to which information in the published studies was reported, as well as how accurately the information was reflected, varied. How accurately the information was reflected also varied. Differences between the published studies and the summaries included simple typing errors, unclear and incomplete reporting, as well as the omission of information on, for example, study design, results, or interpretation of the results, which in some cases could be considered relevant for the risk assessment. This raises concerns regarding the accuracy of study summaries and their use for decision making. Moreover, the possibility for third parties to independently assess and scrutinize the summaries is limited. Considering that we rely on REACH registration data for chemical safety, all data used for risk assessment should be accessible for thorough examination and fully independent assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;00:000-000. © 2019 SETAC., (© 2019 SETAC.)

The Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) web-based platform was developed to promote and facilitate structure and transparency in the evaluation of ecotoxicity and toxicity studies for hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. The platform includes sets of criteria and a colour-coding tool for evaluating the reliability and relevance of individual studies. The SciRAP method for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies was first published in 2014 and the aim of the work presented here was to evaluate and develop that method further. Toxicologists and risk assessors from different sectors and geographical areas were invited to test the SciRAP criteria and tool on a specific set of in vivo toxicity studies and to provide feedback concerning the scientific soundness and user-friendliness of the SciRAP approach. The results of this expert assessment were used to refine and improve both the evaluation criteria and the colour-coding tool. It is expected that the SciRAP web-based platform will continue to be developed and enhanced to keep up to date with the needs of end-users., (Copyright © 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Fundamental to regulatory guidelines is to identify chemicals that are implicated with adverse human health effects and inform public health risk assessors about "acceptable ranges" of such environmental exposures (e.g., from consumer products and pesticides). The process is made more difficult when accounting for complex human exposures to multiple environmental chemicals. Herein we propose a new class of nonlinear statistical models for human data that incorporate and evaluate regulatory guideline values into analyses of health effects of exposure to chemical mixtures using so-called 'desirability functions' (DFs). The DFs are incorporated into nonlinear regression models to allow for the simultaneous estimation of points of departure for risk assessment of combinations of individual substances that are parts of chemical mixtures detected in humans. These are, in contrast to published so-called biomonitoring equivalent (BE) values and human biomonitoring (HBM) values that link regulatory guideline values from in vivo studies of single chemicals to internal concentrations monitored in humans. We illustrate the strategy through the analysis of prenatal concentrations of mixtures of 11 chemicals with suspected endocrine disrupting properties and two health effects: birth weight and language delay at 2.5 years. The strategy allows for the creation of a Mixture Desirability Function i.e., MDF, which is a uni-dimensional construct of the set of single chemical DFs; thus, it focuses the resulting inference to a single dimension for a more powerful one degree-of-freedom test of significance. Based on the application of this new method we conclude that the guideline values need to be lower than those for single chemicals when the chemicals are observed in combination to achieve a similar level of protection as was aimed for the individual chemicals. The proposed modeling may thus suggest data-driven uncertainty factors for single chemical risk assessment that takes environmental mixtures into account., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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.

This is a call for action to scientific journals to introduce reporting requirements for toxicity and ecotoxicity studies. Such reporting requirements will support the use of peer-reviewed research studies in regulatory decision-making. Moreover, this could improve the reliability and reproducibility of published studies in general and make better use of the resources spent in research., (© 2018 The Authors. Journal of Applied Toxicology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Regulatory policies in many parts of the world recognize either the utility of or the mandate that all available studies be considered in environmental or ecological hazard and risk assessment (ERA) of chemicals, including studies from the peer-reviewed literature. Consequently, a vast array of different studies and data types need to be considered. The first steps in the evaluation process involve determining whether the study is relevant to the ERA and sufficiently reliable. Relevance evaluation is typically performed using existing guidance but involves application of "expert judgment" by risk assessors. In the present paper, we review published guidance for relevance evaluation and, on the basis of the practical experience within the group of authors, we identify additional aspects and further develop already proposed aspects that should be considered when conducting a relevance assessment for ecotoxicological studies. From a regulatory point of view, the overarching key aspect of relevance concerns the ability to directly or indirectly use the study in ERA with the purpose of addressing specific protection goals and ultimately regulatory decision making. Because ERA schemes are based on the appropriate linking of exposure and effect estimates, important features of ecotoxicological studies relate to exposure relevance and biological relevance. Exposure relevance addresses the representativeness of the test substance, environmental exposure media, and exposure regime. Biological relevance deals with the environmental significance of the test organism and the endpoints selected, the ecological realism of the test conditions simulated in the study, as well as a mechanistic link of treatment-related effects for endpoints to the protection goal identified in the ERA. In addition, uncertainties associated with relevance should be considered in the assessment. A systematic and transparent assessment of relevance is needed for regulatory decision making. The relevance aspects also need to be considered by scientists when designing, performing, and reporting ecotoxicological studies to facilitate their use in ERA. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:652-663. © 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)., (© 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).)

The interactions between academic research and regulatory assessment of chemicals may in theory seem straightforward: researchers perform studies, and these studies are used by regulators for decision-making. However, in practice the situation is more complex, and many factors decide a research study's regulatory use. According to several EU chemical legislations, all available and relevant studies can be used in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. However, in practice, standard tests conducted under GLP and sponsored and provided by industry are predominantly used. Peer-reviewed studies from independent sources are often disregarded or disputed since they often do not comply with regulatory data requirements and quality criteria. To help bridge such a gap, the aim of this paper is to give an overview of the general workings of legislation of chemicals and propose a set of actions to increase the usability of research data. In the end, this may increase the use of academic research for decision-making and ultimately result in more science-based policies. From a policy perspective, useful scientific evidence comprises those studies that are sufficiently reliable and relevant. This is not in contradiction to the aims of research and generally accepted scientific standards.

Different tools have been developed that facilitate systematic and transparent evaluation and handling of toxicity data in the risk assessment process. The present paper sets out to explore the combined use of two web-based tools for study evaluation and identification of reliable data relevant to health risk assessment. For this purpose, a case study was performed using in vivo toxicity studies investigating low-dose effects of bisphenol A on mammary gland development. The reliability of the mammary gland studies was evaluated using the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) criteria for toxicity studies. The Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC) was used for characterizing and visualizing the mammary gland data in terms of type of effects investigated and reported, and the distribution of these effects within the dose interval. It was then investigated whether there was any relationship between study reliability and the type of effects reported and/or their distribution in the dose interval. The combination of the SciRAP and HAWC tools allowed for transparent evaluation and visualization of the studies investigating developmental effects of BPA on the mammary gland. The use of these tools showed that there were no apparent differences in the type of effects and their distribution in the dose interval between the five studies assessed as most reliable and the whole data set. Combining the SciRAP and HAWC tools was found to be a useful approach for evaluating in vivo toxicity studies and identifying reliable and sensitive information relevant to regulatory risk assessment of chemicals. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., (Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Reducing the number of laboratory animals used and refining experimental procedures to enhance animal welfare are fundamental questions to be considered in connection with animal experimentation. Here, we explored the use of cardinal ethical weights for clinical signs and symptoms in rodents by conducting trade-off interviews with members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees in order to derive such weights for nine typical clinical signs of toxicity. The participants interviewed represent researchers, politically nominated political nominees and representatives of animal welfare organizations. We observed no statistically significant differences between these groups with respect to the magnitude of the ethical weights assigned, though the political nominees tended to assign lower weights. Overall, hunched posture was considered the most severe clinical sign and body weight loss the least severe. The ethical weights assigned varied considerably between individuals, from zero to infinite value, indicating discrepancies in prioritization of reduction and refinement. Cardinal ethical weights may be utilized to include both animal welfare refinement and reduction of animal use in designing as well as in retrospective assessment of animal experiments. Such weights may also be used to estimate ethical costs of animal experiments.

The REACH regulation requires EU manufacturers and importers of substances to register information on the hazard and risk of their substances with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). Risk management of the substances is based on the provided information. It is known that conclusions on hazard and risk are influenced by expert judgements as well as potential conflict of interests. Thus, it is important that hazard and risk assessments are transparent and can be evaluated by a third party. The aim of this study is to scrutinize the transparency, i.e. the accessibility and comprehensibility, of information on substances registered under REACH. Data on repeated dose toxicity and hazard assessment conclusions were extracted for 60 substances from the REACH registration database available on the ECHA website. The data were compiled in a database for systematically evaluating the transparency of information related to the conclusions on hazard or risk. In addition, chemical safety reports (CSR) were requested from ECHA for five substances. The transparency of information on the hazard and risk of substances was found to be limited for several reasons. First, certain information was removed due to confidentiality and certain fields were not published because they could contain confidential information although the information had not been claimed confidential. Also, the extent to which registrants reported information varied, and the presentation of some data and certain terminology required further clarification. In addition, the data source for the majority of the key and supporting studies could not be identified due to confidentiality. Since registrants are only required to summarise studies, it cannot be verified whether all relevant information from non-public industry reports have been reported. Lastly, certain information related to the hazard and risk assessment were only reported in the CSR which is only available upon request; a time-consuming and work-intensive process. As information on registered chemicals is currently provided to the public, it is difficult to follow steps that are undertaken in the hazard and risk assessment. This limits the possibility for a third party to evaluate the assessment.

Background: In managing chemical risks to the environment and human health in supply chains, voluntary corporate social responsibility (CSR) measures, such as auditing code of conduct compliance, play an important role., Objectives: To examine how well suppliers' chemical health and safety performance complies with buyers' CSR policies and whether audited factories improve their performance., Methods: CSR audits (n = 288) of garment factories conducted by Fair Wear Foundation (FWF), an independent non-profit organization, were analyzed using descriptive statistics and statistical modeling., Results: Forty-three per cent of factories did not comply with the FWF code of conduct, i.e. received remarks on chemical safety. Only among factories audited 10 or more times was there a significant increase in the number of factories receiving no remarks., Conclusions: Compliance with chemical safety requirements in garment supply chains is low and auditing is statistically correlated with improvements only at factories that have undergone numerous audits.

Correction for 'The dilemma in prioritizing chemicals for environmental analysis: known versus unknown hazards' by Anna Sobek et al., Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2016, DOI: 10.1039/c6em00163g.