Search results

Background: Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as exogenous compounds or mixtures that alter function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations. European regulations on pesticides, biocides, cosmetics, and industrial chemicals require the European Commission to establish scientific criteria to define EDs.Objectives: We address the scientific relevance of four options for the identification of EDs proposed by the European Commission.Discussion: Option 1, which does not define EDs and leads to using interim criteria unrelated to the WHO definition of EDs, is not relevant. Options 2 and 3 rely on the WHO definition of EDs, which is widely accepted by the scientific community, with option 3 introducing additional categories based on the strength of evidence (suspected EDs and endocrine-active substances). Option 4 adds potency to the WHO definition, as a decision criterion. We argue that potency is dependent on the adverse effect considered and is scientifically ambiguous, and note that potency is not used as a criterion to define other particularly hazardous substances such as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. The use of potency requires a context that goes beyond hazard identification and corresponds to risk characterization, in which potency (or, more relevantly, the dose–response function) is combined with exposure levels.Conclusions: There is scientific agreement regarding the adequacy of the WHO definition of EDs. The potency concept is not relevant to the identification of particularly serious hazards such as EDs. As is common practice for carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants, a multi-level classification of ED based on the WHO definition, and not considering potency, would be relevant (corresponding to option 3 proposed by the European Commission).

Abstract
The present monitoring and assessment of water quality problems fails to characterize the likelihood that complex mixtures of chemicals affect water quality. The European collaborative project SOLUTIONS suggests that this likelihood can be estimated, amongst other methods, with improved component-based methods (CBMs). The use of CBMs is a well-established practice in the WFD, as one of the lines of evidence to evaluate chemical pollution on a per-chemical basis. However, this is currently limited to a pre-selection of 45 and approximately 300 monitored substances (priority substances and river basin-specific pollutants, respectively), of which only a few actually co-occur in relevant concentrations in real-world mixtures. Advanced CBM practices are therefore needed that consider a broader, realistic spectrum of chemicals and thereby improve the assessment of mixture impacts, diagnose the causes of observed impacts and provide more useful water management information. Various CBMs are described and illustrated, often representing improvements of well-established methods. Given the goals of the WFD and expanding on current guidance for risk assessment, these improved CBMs can be applied to predicted or monitored concentrations of chemical pollutants to provide information for management planning. As shown in various examples, the outcomes of the improved CBMs allow for the evaluation of the current likelihood of impacts, of alternative abatement scenarios as well as the expected consequences of future pollution scenarios. The outputs of the improved CBMs are useful to underpin programmes of measures to protect and improve water quality. The combination of CBMs with effect-based methods (EBMs) might be especially powerful to identify as yet underinvestigated emerging pollutants and their importance in a mixture toxicity context. The present paper has been designed as one in a series of policy briefs to support decisions on water quality protection, monitoring, assessment and management under the European Water Framework Directive (WFD).

Abstract
Evidence is mounting that chemicals can produce joint toxicity even when combined at levels that singly do not pose risks. Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) defined for single pollutants under the Water Framework Directive (WFD) do not protect from mixture risks, nor do they enable prioritization of management options. Despite some provisions for mixtures of specific groups of chemicals, the WFD is not fit for purpose for protecting against or managing the effects of coincidental mixtures of water-borne pollutants. The conceptual tools for conducting mixture risk assessment are available and ready for use in regulatory and risk assessment practice. Extension towards impact assessment using cumulative toxic unit and mixture toxic pressure analysis based on chemical monitoring data or modelling has been suggested by the SOLUTIONS project. Problems exist in the availability of the data necessary for mixture risk assessments. Mixture risk assessments cannot be conducted without essential input data about exposures to chemicals and their toxicity. If data are missing, mixture risk assessments will be biassed towards underestimating risks. The WFD itself is not intended to provide toxicity data. Data gaps can only be closed if proper feedback links between the WFD and other EU regulations for industrial chemicals (REACH), pesticides (PPPR), biocides (BPR) and pharmaceuticals are implemented. Changes of the WFD alone cannot meet these requirements. Effect-based monitoring programmes developed by SOLUTIONS should be implemented as they can capture the toxicity of complex mixtures and provide leads for new candidate chemicals that require attention in mixture risk assessment. Efforts of modelling pollutant levels and their anticipated mixture effects in surface water can also generate such leads. New pollutant prioritization schemes conceived by SOLUTIONS, applied in the context of site prioritization, will help to focus mixture risk assessments on those chemicals and sites that make substantial contributions to mixture risks.

Introduction: Increasing evidence suggests that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) contribute to male reproductive diseases and disorders. Purpose: To estimate the incidence/prevalence of selected male reproductive disorders/diseases and associated economic costs that can be reasonably attributed to specific EDC exposures in the European Union (EU). Methods: An expert panel evaluated evidence for probability of causation using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change weight-of-evidence characterization. Exposure-response relationships and reference levels were evaluated, and biomarker data were organized from carefully identified studies from the peer-reviewed literature to represent European exposure and approximate burden of disease as it occurred in 2010. The cost-of-illness estimation utilized multiple peer-reviewed sources. Results: The expert panel identified low epidemiological and strong toxicological evidence for male infertility attributable to phthalate exposure, with a 40-69% probability of causing 618 000 additional assisted reproductive technology procedures, costing (sic)4.71 billion annually. Low epidemiological and strong toxicological evidence was also identified for cryptorchidism due to prenatal polybrominated diphenyl ether exposure, resulting in a 40-69% probability that 4615 cases result, at a cost of (sic)130 million (sensitivity analysis, (sic)117-130 million). A much more modest (0-19%) probability of causation in testicular cancer by polybrominated diphenyl ethers was identified due to very low epidemiological and weak toxicological evidence, with 6830 potential cases annually and costs of (sic)848 million annually (sensitivity analysis, (sic)313-848 million). The panel assigned 40-69% probability of lower T concentrations in 55- to 64-year-old men due to phthalate exposure, with 24 800 associated deaths annually and lost economic productivity of (sic)7.96 billion. Conclusions: EDCs may contribute substantially to male reproductive disorders and diseases, with nearly (sic)15 ...

Abstract
Current prioritisation procedures under the EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) do not account for risks from chemical mixtures. SOLUTIONS proposes a multiple-lines-of-evidence approach to tackle the problem effectively. The approach merges all available evidence from co-exposure modelling, chemical monitoring, effect-based monitoring, and ecological monitoring. Full implementation of the proposed methodology requires changes in the legal text in adaptation to scientific progress.

Rapidly increasing evidence has documented that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) contribute substantially to disease and disability. Objective: The objective was to quantify a range of health and economic costs that can be reasonably attributed to EDC exposures in the European Union (EU). Design: A Steering Committee of scientists adapted the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change weight-of-evidence characterization for probability of causation based upon levels of available epidemiological and toxicological evidence for one or more chemicals contributing to disease by an endocrine disruptor mechanism. To evaluate the epidemiological evidence, the Steering Committee adapted the World Health Organization Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group criteria, whereas the Steering Committee adapted definitions recently promulgated by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency for evaluating laboratory and animal evidence of endocrine disruption. Expert panels used the Delphi method to make decisions on the strength of the data. Results: Expert panels achieved consensus at least for probable (>20%) EDC causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability, autism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, childhood obesity, adult obesity, adult diabetes, cryptorchidism, male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced testosterone. Accounting for probability of causation and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median cost of (sic)157 billion (or $ 209 billion, corresponding to 1.23% of EU gross domestic product) annually across 1000 simulations. Notably, using the lowest end of the probability range for each relationship in the Monte Carlo simulations produced a median range of (sic)109 billion that differed modestly from base case probability inputs. Conclusions: EDC exposures in the EU are likely to contribute substantially to disease and dysfunction across the life course with costs in ...

Recently, the Guardian published an article entitled "EU clean water laws under attack from industry lobbyists" by Arthur Neslen (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/15/eu-clean-water-laws-under-attack-from-industry-lobbyists) expressing concerns regarding a roll back in European clean water regulations. As principal investigators of the large EU-funded project "SOLUTIONS for present and future emerging pollutants in land and water resources management", we appreciate such an open debate on water quality protection in Europe, which we would like to enrich with conclusions from 5 years of extensive research and stakeholder dialogue within SOLUTIONS and other large EU projects. ; This article has been prepared as an outcome of the SOLUTIONS project (European Union's Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under Grant Agreement No. 603437). ; Peer reviewed

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11–12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose–response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11–12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose–response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Humans and wildlife are exposed to an intractably large number of different combinations of chemicals via food, water, air, consumer products, and other media and sources. This raises concerns about their impact on public and environmental health. The risk assessment of chemicals for regulatory purposes mainly relies on the assessment of individual chemicals. If exposure to multiple chemicals is considered in a legislative framework, it is usually limited to chemicals falling within this framework and co-exposure to chemicals that are covered by a different regulatory framework is often neglected. Methodologies and guidance for assessing risks from combined exposure to multiple chemicals have been developed for different regulatory sectors, however, a harmonised, consistent approach for performing mixture risk assessments and management across different regulatory sectors is lacking. At the time of this publication, several EU research projects are running, funded by the current European Research and Innovation Programme Horizon 2020 or the Seventh Framework Programme. They aim at addressing knowledge gaps and developing methodologies to better assess chemical mixtures, by generating and making available internal and external exposure data, developing models for exposure assessment, developing tools for in silico and in vitro effect assessment to be applied in a tiered framework and for grouping of chemicals, as well as developing joint epidemiological-toxicological approaches for mixture risk assessment and for prioritising mixtures of concern. The projects EDC-MixRisk, EuroMix, EUToxRisk, HBM4EU and SOLUTIONS have started an exchange between the consortia, European Commission Services and EU Agencies, in order to identify where new methodologies have become available and where remaining gaps need to be further addressed. This paper maps how the different projects contribute to the data needs and assessment methodologies and identifies remaining challenges to be further addressed for the assessment of chemical ...