| 1. |
- Vandenberg, Laura N., et al.
(författare)
-
Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Reproductive Toxicology. - : Elsevier. - 0890-6238 .- 1873-1708. ; 38, s. 1-15
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- For years, scientists from various disciplines have studied the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) on the health and wellbeing of humans and wildlife. Some studies have specifically focused on the effects of low doses, i.e. those in the range that are thought to be safe for humans and/or animals. Others have focused on the existence of non-monotonic dose-response curves. These concepts challenge the way that chemical risk assessment is performed for EDCs. Continued discussions have clarified exactly what controversies and challenges remain. We address several of these issues, including why the study and regulation of EDCs should incorporate endocrine principles; what level of consensus there is for low dose effects; challenges to our understanding of non-monotonicity; and whether EDCs have been demonstrated to produce adverse effects. This discussion should result in a better understanding of these issues, and allow for additional dialog on their impact on risk assessment.
|
|
| 2. |
- vom Saal, Frederick S., et al.
(författare)
-
The Conflict between Regulatory Agencies over the 20,000-Fold Lowering of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for Bisphenol A (BPA) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 132:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended lowering their estimated tolerable daily intake (TDI) for bisphenol A (BPA) 20,000-fold to 0.2 ng/kg body weight (BW)/day. BPA is an extensively studied high production volume endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) associated with a vast array of diseases. Prior risk assessments of BPA by EFSA as well as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have relied on industry-funded studies conducted under good laboratory practice protocols (GLP) requiring guideline end points and detailed record keeping, while also claiming to examine (but rejecting) thousands of published findings by academic scientists. Guideline protocols initially formalized in the mid-twentieth century are still used by many regulatory agencies. EFSA used a 21st century approach in its reassessment of BPA and conducted a transparent, but time-limited, systematic review that included both guideline and academic research. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) opposed EFSA’s revision of the TDI for BPA.Objectives: We identify the flaws in the assumptions that the German BfR, as well as the FDA, have used to justify maintaining the TDI for BPA at levels above what a vast amount of academic research shows to cause harm. We argue that regulatory agencies need to incorporate 21st century science into chemical hazard identifications using the CLARITY-BPA (Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity) nonguideline academic studies in a collaborative government–academic program model.Discussion: We strongly endorse EFSA’s revised TDI for BPA and support the European Commission’s (EC) apparent acceptance of this updated BPA risk assessment. We discuss challenges to current chemical risk assessment assumptions about EDCs that need to be addressed by regulatory agencies to, in our opinion, become truly protective of public health. Addressing these challenges will hopefully result in BPA, and eventually other structurally similar bisphenols (called regrettable substitutions) for which there are known adverse effects, being eliminated from all food-related and many other uses in the EU and elsewhere.
|
|
