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 principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, London, England.
Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center, Södertälje, Sweden.
Charité, Berlin, Germany.
Show others and affiliations
2017 (English)In: Archives of Toxicology, ISSN 0340-5761, E-ISSN 1432-0738, Vol. 91, no 2, p. 1001-1006Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer, 2017. Vol. 91, no 2, p. 1001-1006
National Category
Environmental Sciences Public Health, Global Health and Social Medicine
Research subject
Enviromental Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:oru:diva-83785DOI: 10.1007/s00204-016-1866-9ISI: 000394180500032PubMedID: 27714423Scopus ID: 2-s2.0-84990840467OAI: oai:DiVA.org:oru-83785DiVA, id: diva2:1448239
Note

Funding Agency:

German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment

Available from: 2020-06-26 Created: 2020-06-26 Last updated: 2025-02-20Bibliographically 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
Archives of Toxicology
Environmental SciencesPublic Health, Global Health and Social Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 94 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