To Örebro University

oru.seÖrebro University Publications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to Identify Endocrine-Disrupting Substances in the European Union
University Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble (La Tronche), France.
University of Liège, Liège, Belgium.
Department RDDM, Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris, France.
School of Biosciences & School of Veterinary Medicine and Science, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England.
Show others and affiliations
2016 (English)In: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives, ISSN 0091-6765, E-ISSN 1552-9924, Vol. 124, no 10, p. 1497-1503Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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).

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
National Institute of Environmental Health Science , 2016. Vol. 124, no 10, p. 1497-1503
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Enviromental Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-83784DOI: 10.1289/EHP217ISI: 000384334400011PubMedID: 27108591Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84989328967OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-83784DiVA, id: diva2:1448238
Available from: 2020-06-26 Created: 2020-06-26 Last updated: 2021-02-19Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMedScopus

Authority records

Zoeller, R. Thomas

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zoeller, R. Thomas
In the same journal
Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and EpidemiologyEnvironmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 63 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf