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.

Anticipating, identifying, and prioritizing strategic needs represent essential activities by research organizations. Decided benefits emerge when these pursuits engage globally important environment and health goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, horizon scanning efforts can facilitate identification of specific research needs to address grand challenges. We report and discuss 40 priority research questions following engagement of scientists and engineers in North America. These timely questions identify the importance of stimulating innovation and developing new methods, tools, and concepts in environmental chemistry and toxicology to improve assessment and management of chemical contaminants and other diverse environmental stressors. Grand challenges to achieving sustainable management of the environment are becoming increasingly complex and structured by global megatrends, which collectively challenge existing sustainable environmental quality efforts. Transdisciplinary, systems‐based approaches will be required to define and avoid adverse biological effects across temporal and spatial gradients. Similarly, coordinated research activities among organizations within and among countries are necessary to address the priority research needs reported here. Acquiring answers to these 40 research questions will not be trivial, but doing so promises to advance sustainable environmental quality in the 21st century. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1606–1624. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.

As regulatory programs evaluate substances for their endocrine disrupting properties, careful study design and data interpretation is needed to distinguish between responses that are truly endocrine-specific and those that are not. This is particularly important in regulatory environments where criteria are under development to identify endocrine disrupting properties to enable hazard-based regulation. Irrespective of these processes, most jurisdictions use the WHO/IPCS definition of an endocrine disruptor (ED), requiring that a substance is demonstrated to cause a change in endocrine function that consequently leads to an adverse effect in an intact organism. Such a definition is broad, and at its most cautious, might capture many general mechanisms that would not specifically denote an ED. In addition, endocrine responses may be adaptive in nature, designed to maintain homeostasis rather than induce an irreversible adverse effect. The likelihood of indirect effects is increased in (eco)toxicological studies requiring the use of maximum tolerated concentrations or doses, which must produce some adverse effect. The misidentification of indirect effects as truly endocrine mediated has serious consequences for prompting animal- and resource-intensive testing and regulatory consequences. To minimize the risk of misidentification, an objective and transparent weight of evidence (WoE) procedure based on biological plausibility, essentiality, and empirical evidence of key events in an adverse outcome pathway is recommended to describe the modes of action that may be involved in toxic responses in non-target organisms. Confounding factors such as systemic toxicity, general stress, and infection can add complexity to such an evaluation and should be considered in the WoE. A recommended set of questions are proffered to help guide researchers and regulators in discerning endocrine and non-endocrine responses. While many examples provided in this paper are based on ecotoxicology, the majority of the concepts and processes are applicable to both environmental and human health assessments

No abstract

Mitochondria are key targets of many environmental contaminants, because specific chemicals can interact directly with mitochondrial proteins, lipids, and ribonucleic acids. These direct interactions serve as molecular initiating events that impede adenosine triphosphate production and other critical functions that mitochondria serve within the cell (e.g., calcium and metal homeostasis, apoptosis, immune signaling, redox balance). A limited but growing number of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) have been proposed to associate mitochondrial dysfunction with effects at organismal and population levels. These pathways involve key events such as altered membrane potential, mitochondrial fission/fusion, and mitochondrial DNA damage, among others. The present critical review and analysis reveals current progress on AOPs involving mitochondrial dysfunction, and, using a network‐based computational approach, identifies the localization of mitochondrial molecular initiating events and key events within multiple existing AOPs. We also present 2 case studies, the first examining the interaction between mitochondria and immunotoxicity, and the second examining the role of early mitochondrial dysfunction in the context of behavior (i.e., locomotor activity). We discuss limitations in our current understanding of mitochondrial AOPs and highlight opportunities for clarifying their details. Advancing our knowledge of key event relationships within the AOP framework will require high‐throughput datasets that permit the development and testing of chemical‐agnostic AOPs, as well as high‐resolution research that will enhance the mechanistic testing and validation of these key event relationships. Given the wide range of chemicals that affect mitochondria, and the centrality of energy production and signaling to ecologically important outcomes such as pathogen defense, homeostasis, growth, and reproduction, a better understanding of mitochondrial AOPs is expected to play a significant, if not central, role in environmental toxicology. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1625–1634. © 2019 SETAC