Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are substances that cause adverse health effects via endocrine-mediated mechanisms in an intact organism or its progeny or (sub) populations. Purported EDCs in personal care products include 4-MBC (UV filter) or parabens that showed oestrogenic activity in screening tests, although regulatory toxicity studies showed no adverse effects on reproductive endpoints. Hormonal potency is the key issue of the safety of EDCs. Oestrogen-based drugs, e.g. the contraceptive pill or the synthetic oestrogen DES, possess potencies up to 7 orders of magnitude higher than those of PCP ingredients; yet, in utero exposure to these drugs did not adversely affect fertility or sexual organ development of offspring unless exposed to extreme doses. Additive effects of EDs are unlikely due to the multitude of mechanisms how substances may produce a hormone-like activity; even after uptake of different substances with a similar mode of action, the possibility of additive effects is reduced by different absorption, metabolism and kinetics. This is supported by a number of studies on mixtures of chemical EDCs. Overall, despite of 20 years of research a human health risk from exposure to low concentrations of exogenous chemical substances with weak hormone-like activities remains an unproven and unlikely hypothesis.

No abstract

"Weight of Evidence" (WoE) approaches are often used to critically examine, prioritize, and integrate results from different types of studies to reach general conclusions. For assessing hormonally active agents, WoE evaluations are necessary to assess screening assays that identify potential interactions with components of the endocrine system, long-term reproductive and developmental toxicity tests that define adverse effects, mode of action studies aimed at identifying toxicological pathways underlying adverse effects, and toxicity, exposure and pharmacokinetic data to characterize potential risks. We describe a hypothesis-driven WoE approach for hormonally active agents and illustrate the approach by constructing hypotheses for testing the premise that a substance interacts as an agonist or antagonist with components of estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways or with components of the aromatase or steroidogenic enzyme systems for evaluating data within the US EPA's Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Published recommendations are used to evaluate data validity for testing each hypothesis and quantitative weightings are proposed to reflect two data parameters. Relevance weightings should be derived for each endpoint to reflect the degree to which it probes each specific hypothesis. Response weightings should be derived based on assay results from the test substance compared to the range of responses produced in the assay by the appropriate prototype hormone and positive and negative controls. Overall WoE scores should be derived based on response and relevance weightings and a WoE narrative developed to clearly describe the final determinations.

Weight of evidence (WoE) approaches are recommended for interpreting various toxicological data, but few systematic and transparent procedures exist. A hypothesis-based WoE framework was recently published focusing on the U.S. EPA's Tier 1 Endocrine Screening Battery (ESB) as an example. The framework recommends weighting each experimental endpoint according to its relevance for deciding eight hypotheses addressed by the ESB. Here we present detailed rationale for weighting the ESB endpoints according to three rank ordered categories and an interpretive process for using the rankings to reach WoE determinations. Rank 1 was assigned to in vivo endpoints that characterize the fundamental physiological actions for androgen, estrogen, and thyroid activities. Rank 1 endpoints are specific and sensitive for the hypothesis, interpretable without ancillary data, and rarely confounded by artifacts or nonspecific activity. Rank 2 endpoints are specific and interpretable for the hypothesis but less informative than Rank 1, often due to oversensitivity, inclusion of narrowly context-dependent components of the hormonal system (e.g., in vitro endpoints), or confounding by nonspecific activity. Rank 3 endpoints are relevant for the hypothesis but only corroborative of Ranks 1 and 2 endpoints. Rank 3 includes many apical in vivo endpoints that can be affected by systemic toxicity and nonhormonal activity. Although these relevance weight rankings (W REL ) necessarily involve professional judgment, their a priori derivation enhances transparency and renders WoE determinations amenable to methodological scrutiny according to basic scientific premises, characteristics that cannot be assured by processes in which the rationale for decisions is provided post hoc.

Whether thresholds exist for endocrine active substances and for endocrine disrupting effects of exogenous chemicals has been posed as a question for regulatory policy by the European Union. This question arises from a concern that the endocrine system is too complex to allow estimations of safe levels of exposure to any chemical with potential endocrine activity, and a belief that any such chemical can augment, retard, or disrupt the normal background activity of endogenous hormones. However, vital signaling functions of the endocrine system require it to continuously discriminate the biological information conveyed by potent endogenous hormones from a more concentrated background of structurally similar, endogenous molecules with low hormonal potential. This obligatory ability to discriminate important hormonal signals from background noise can be used to define thresholds for induction of hormonal effects, without which normal physiological functions would be impossible. From such thresholds, safe levels of exposure can be estimated. This brief review highlights how the fundamental principles governing hormonal effects - affinity, efficacy, potency, and mass action - dictate the existence of thresholds and why these principles also define the potential that exogenous chemicals might have to interfere with normal endocrine functioning.

A SETAC Pellston Workshop® “Environmental Hazard and Risk Assessment Approaches for Endocrine-Active Substances (EHRA)” was held in February 2016 in Pensacola, Florida, USA. The primary objective of the workshop was to provide advice, based on current scientific understanding, to regulators and policy makers; the aim being to make considered, informed decisions on whether to select an ecotoxicological hazard- or a risk-based approach for regulating a given endocrinedisrupting substance (EDS) under review. The workshop additionally considered recent developments in the identification of EDS. Case studies were undertaken on 6 endocrine-active substances (EAS—not necessarily proven EDS, but substances known to interact directly with the endocrine system) that are representative of a range of perturbations of the endocrine system and considered to be data rich in relevant information at multiple biological levels of organization for 1 or more ecologically relevant taxa. The substances selected were 17α-ethinylestradiol, perchlorate, propiconazole, 17β-trenbolone, tributyltin, and vinclozolin. The 6 case studies were not comprehensive safety evaluations but provided foundations for clarifying key issues and procedures that should be considered when assessing the ecotoxicological hazards and risks of EAS and EDS. The workshop also highlighted areas of scientific uncertainty, and made specific recommendations for research and methods-development to resolve some of the identified issues. The present paper provides broad guidance for scientists in regulatory authorities, industry, and academia on issues likely to arise during the ecotoxicological hazard and risk assessment of EAS and EDS. The primary conclusion of this paper, and of the SETAC Pellston Workshop on which it is based, is that if data on environmental exposure, effects on sensitive species and life-stages, delayed effects, and effects at low concentrations are robust, initiating environmental risk assessment of EDS is scientifically sound and sufficiently reliable and protective of the environment. In the absence of such data, assessment on the basis of hazard is scientifically justified until such time as relevant new information is available.

Background: There is an ongoing discussion on the provenance of toxicity testing data regarding how best to ensure its validity and credibility. A central argument is whether journal peer-review procedures are superior to Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards employed for compliance with regulatory mandates.Objective: We sought to evaluate the rationale for regulatory decision making based on peer-review procedures versus GLP standards.Method: We examined pertinent published literature regarding how scientific data quality and validity are evaluated for peer review, GLP compliance, and development of regulations.Discussion: Some contend that peer review is a coherent, consistent evaluative procedure providing quality control for experimental data generation, analysis, and reporting sufficient to reliably establish relative merit, whereas GLP is seen as merely a tracking process designed to thwart investigator corruption. This view is not supported by published analyses pointing to subjectivity and variability in peer-review processes. Although GLP is not designed to establish relative merit, it is an internationally accepted quality assurance, quality control method for documenting experimental conduct and data.Conclusions: Neither process is completely sufficient for establishing relative scientific soundness. However, changes occurring both in peer-review processes and in regulatory guidance resulting in clearer, more transparent communication of scientific information point to an emerging convergence in ensuring information quality. The solution to determining relative merit lies in developing a well-documented, generally accepted weight-of-evidence scheme to evaluate both peer-reviewed and GLP information used in regulatory decision making where both merit and specific relevance inform the process.

We describe a set of criteria to evaluate the quality of data and interpretations in chemical interaction studies. These criteria reflect the consensus of the literature on interaction analysis developed over decades of research in pharmacology, toxicology, and biometry; address common pitfalls in published interaction studies; and can be easily applied to common methods of interaction analysis. The criteria apply broadly to interaction data for drugs, pesticides, industrial chemicals, food additives, and natural products and are intended to assist risk assessors who must evaluate interaction studies for use in component-based mixture risk assessments. The criteria may also assist researchers interested in conducting interaction studies to inform mixture risk assessment. The criteria are also intended to serve larger scientific goals, including increasing the repeatability of results obtained in chemical interaction studies, enhancing the reliability of conclusions drawn from interaction data, providing greater consistency of interpretations among various analysts, and decreasing uncertainty in using interaction data in risk assessments. We describe the basis for each criterion and demonstrate their utility by using them to evaluate interaction studies from the recent toxicological and pharmacological literature, which serve as examples of different types of data sets that the risk assessor may encounter.