Despite the fact that more than 5000 safety-related studies have been published on bisphenol A (BPA), there seems to be no resolution of the apparently deadlocked controversy as to whether exposure of the general population to BPA causes adverse effects due to its estrogenicity. Therefore, the Advisory Committee of the German Society of Toxicology reviewed the background and cutting-edge topics of this BPA controversy. The current tolerable daily intake value (TDI) of 0.05 mg/kg body weight [bw]/day, derived by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), is mainly based on body weight changes in two- and three-generation studies in mice and rats. Recently, these studies and the derivation of the TDI have been criticized. After having carefully considered all arguments, the Committee had to conclude that the criticism was scientifically not justified; moreover, recently published additional data further support the reliability of the two-and three-generation studies demonstrating a lack of estrogen-dependent effects at and below doses on which the current TDI is based. A frequently discussed topic is whether doses below 5 mg/ kg bw/day may cause adverse health effects in laboratory animals. Meanwhile, it has become clear that positive results from some explorative studies have not been confirmed in subsequent studies with higher numbers of animals or a priori defined hypotheses. Particularly relevant are some recent studies with negative outcomes that addressed effects of BPA on the brain, behavior, and the prostate in rodents for extrapolation to the human situation. The Committee came to the conclusion that rodent data can well be used as a basis for human risk evaluation. Currently published conjectures that rats are insensitive to estrogens compared to humans can be refuted. Data from toxicokinetics studies show that the half-life of BPA in adult human subjects is less than 2 hours and BPA is completely recovered in urine as BPA-conjugates. Tissue deconjugation of BPA-glucuronide and -sulfate may occur. Because of the extremely low quantities, it is only of minor relevance for BPA toxicity. Biomonitoring studies have been used to estimate human BPA exposure and show that the daily intake of BPA is far below the TDI for the general population. Further topics addressed in this article include reasons why some studies on BPA are not reproducible; the relevance of oral versus non-oral exposure routes; the degree to which newborns are at higher systemic BPA exposure; increased BPA exposure by infusions in intensive care units; mechanisms of action other than estrogen receptor activation; and the current regulatory status in Europe, as well as in the USA, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and Australia. Overall, the Committee concluded that the current TDI for BPA is adequately justified and that the available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.

During the last two decades, substantial efforts have been made towards the development and international acceptance of alternative methods to safety studies using laboratory animals. In the EU, challenging timelines for phasing out of many standard tests using laboratory animals were established in the seventh Amending Directive 2003/15/EC to Cosmetics Directive 76/768/EEC. In continuation of this policy, the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH) favours alternative methods to conventional in vivo testing, if validated and appropriate. Even alternative methods in the status of prevalidation or validation, but without scientific or regulatory acceptance may be used under certain conditions. Considerable progress in the establishment of alternative methods has been made in some fields, in particular with respect to methods predicting local toxic effects and genotoxicity. In more complex important fields of safety and risk assessment such as systemic single and repeated dose toxicity, toxicokinetics, sensitisation, reproductive toxicity and carcinogenicity, it is expected that the development and validation of in silico methods, testing batteries (in vitro and in silico) and tiered testing systems will have to overcome many scientific and regulatory obstacles which makes it extremely difficult to predict the outcome and the time needed. The main reasons are the complexity and limited knowledge of the biological processes involved on one hand and the long time frame until validation and regulatory acceptance of an alternative method on the other. New approaches in safety testing and evaluation using "Integrated Testing Strategies" (ITS) (including combinations of existing data, the use of chemical categories/grouping, in vitro tests and QSAR) that have not been validated or not gained wide acceptance in the scientific community and by regulatory authorities will need a thorough justification of their appropriateness for a given purpose. This requires the availability of knowledge and experience of experts in toxicology. The challenging deadlines for phasing out of in vivo tests in the Cosmetics Amending Directive 2003/15/EC appear unrealistic. Likewise, we expect that the application of validated alternative methods will only have a small or moderate impact on the reduction of in vivo tests under the regimen of REACH, provided that at least the same level of protection of human health as in the past is envisaged. As a consequence, under safety aspects, it appears wise to consider established in vivo tests to be indispensable as basic tools for hazard and risk assessment with respect to systemic single and repeated dose toxicity, sensitisation, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity, especially regarding quantitative aspects of risk assessment such as NOAELs, LOAELs and health-related limit values derived from them. Based on the overall evaluation in this review, the authors are of the opinion that in the short- and mid-term, the strategy of the development of alternative methods should be more directed towar...

No abstract

Nanotechnology offers enormous potential for technological progress. Fortunately, early and intensive efforts have been invested in investigating toxicology and safety aspects of this new technology. However, despite there being more than 6,000 publications on nanotoxicology, some key questions still have to be answered and paradigms need to be challenged. Here, we present a view on the field of nanotoxicology to stimulate the discussion on major knowledge gaps and the critical appraisal of concepts or dogma. First, in the ongoing debate as to whether nanoparticles may harbour a specific toxicity due to their size, we support the view that there is at present no evidence of 'nanospecific' mechanisms of action; no step-change in hazard was observed so far for particles below 100 nm in one dimension. Therefore, it seems unjustified to consider all consumer products containing nanoparticles a priori as hazardous. Second, there is no evidence so far that fundamentally different biokinetics of nanoparticles would trigger toxicity. However, data are sparse whether nanoparticles may accumulate to an extent high enough to cause chronic adverse effects. To facilitate hazard assessment, we propose to group nanomaterials into three categories according to the route of exposure and mode of action, respectively: Category 1 comprises nanomaterials for which toxicity is mediated by the specific chemical properties of its components, such as released ions or functional groups on the surface. Nanomaterials belonging to this category have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending on their chemical identity. Category 2 focuses on rigid biopersistent respirable fibrous nanomaterials with a specific geometry and high aspect ratio (so-called WHO fibres). For these fibres, hazard assessment can be based on the experiences with asbestos. Category 3 focuses on respirable granular biodurable particles (GBP) which, after inhalation, may cause inflammation and secondary mutagenicity that may finally lead to lung cancer. After intravenous, oral or dermal exposure, nanoscaled GBPs investigated apparently did not show 'nanospecific' effects so far. Hazard assessment of GBPs may be based on the knowledge available for granular particles. In conclusion, we believe the proposed categorization system will facilitate future hazard assessments.

Queen pheromones interfere with worker reproduction in social insects. However, there is still an unresolved question as to whether this pheromone acts as an "honest" signal for workers, giving a reliable indication of the queen's reproductive value, or as a suppressive agent, inhibiting worker reproduction independent of the queen's reproductive capacity. In honeybees (Apis mellifera), the queen's mandibular gland secretion, a mix of fatty acids and some aromatic compounds, is crucial for regulating the reproductive division of labor in the colony inhibiting ovary development in workers. We quantified the mandibular gland secretions of virgin, drone-laying, and naturally mated queens using gas chromatography to test whether the queens' mating, ovary activation, or the reproductive value for workers correlated with the composition of the secretion. Although the absolute amounts of the "queen substance" 9-oxo-2(E)-decenoic acid (9-ODA) were similar among the three groups, the proportions of 9-ODA decreased with increasing reproductive quality. Furthermore, the ratios of queen to worker compounds were similar in all three treatment groups, irrespective of the reproductive capacity. A multivariate analysis including all six compounds could not separate drone-laying queens from naturally mated ones, both with active ovaries but only the latter ensuring colony survival. We suggest that the mandibular gland pheromones are unlikely to function as reliable indicators of queen reproductive value and rather operate as an agent to suppress worker reproduction. This does not exclude the possibility that other "honest" pheromone signals exist in the honeybee colony, but these would have to arise from other semiochemicals, which could be produced by both the queen and the brood.