Report · Journal article
Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: a consensus statement
Federal Institute for Risk Assessment1
National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark2
Norwegian Institute of Public Health3
UK Health Security Agency4
Istituto Superiore di Sanita5
National Institute of Public Health and the Environment6
Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale7
Utrecht University8
University of Massachusetts9
Imperial College London10
Brunel University London11
Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox)12
Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin13
Leibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors14
University of Konstanz15
Technical University of Munich16
Karolinska Institutet17
Research Group for Reproductive Toxicology, National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark18
...and 8 moreEndocrine 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.
Language: | English |
---|---|
Publisher: | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
Year: | 2017 |
Pages: | 1001-1006 |
ISSN: | 14320738 and 03405761 |
Types: | Report and Journal article |
DOI: | 10.1007/s00204-016-1866-9 |
ORCIDs: | Hass, Ulla |