Parabens are a group of the alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid and typically include methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben, butylparaben, isobutylparaben, isopropylparaben, and benzylparaben. Parabens (or their salts) are widely used as preservatives in cosmetics, toiletries, and pharmaceuticals due to their relatively low toxicity profile and a long history of safe use. Testing of parabens has revealed to varying degrees that individual paraben compounds have weakly estrogenic activity in some in vitro screening tests, such as ligand binding to the estrogen receptor, regulation of CAT gene expression, and proliferation of MCF-7 cells. Reported in vivo effects include increased uterine weight (i.e., butyl-, isobutyl-, and benzylparaben) and male reproductive-tract effects (i.e., butyl- and propylparaben). However, in relation to estrogen as a control during in vivo studies, the parabens with activity are many orders of magnitude less active than estrogen. While exposure to sufficient doses of exogenous estrogen can increase the risk of certain adverse effects, the presumption that similar risks might also result from exposure to endocrine-active chemicals (EACs) with far weaker activity is still speculative. In assessing the likelihood that exposure to weakly active EACs might be etiologically associated with adverse effects due to an endocrine-mediated mode of action, it is paramount to consider both the doses and the potency of such compounds in comparison with estrogen. In this review, a comparative approach involving both dose and potency is used to assess whether in utero or adult exposure to parabens might be associated with adverse effects mediated via an estrogen-modulating mode of action. In utilizing this approach, the paraben doses required to produce estrogenic effects in vivo are compared with the doses of either 17beta-estradiol or diethylstilbestrol (DES) that are well established in their ability to affect endocrine activity. Where possible and appropriate, emphasis is placed on direct comparisons with human data with either 17beta-estradiol or DES, since this does not require extrapolation from animal data with the uncertainties inherent in such comparisons. Based on these comparisons using worst-case assumptions pertaining to total daily exposures to parabens and dose/potency comparisons with both human and animal no-observed-effect levels (NOELs) and lowest-observed-effect levels (LOELs) for estrogen or DES, it is biologically implausible that parabens could increase the risk of any estrogen-mediated endpoint, including effects on the male reproductive tract or breast cancer. Additional analysis based on the concept of a hygiene-based margin of safety (HBMOS), a comparative approach for assessing the estrogen activities of weakly active EACs, demonstrates that worst-case daily exposure to parabens would present substantially less risk relative to exposure to naturally occurring EACs in the diet such as the phytoestrogen daidzein.

Recently, a great deal of attention and interest has been directed toward the hypothesis that exposure, particularly in utero exposure, to certain environmental chemicals might be capable of causing a spectrum of adverse effects as a result of endocrine modulation. In particular, the hypothesis has focused on the idea that certain organochlorine and other compounds acting as weak estrogens have the capability, either alone or in combination, to produce a variety of adverse effects, including breast, testicular and prostate cancer, adverse effects on male reproductive tract, endometriosis, fertility problems, alterations of sexual behavior, learning disability or delay, and adverse effects on immune and thyroid function. While hormones are potent modulators of biochemical and physiological function, the implication that exposure to environmental hormones (e.g., xenoestrogens) has this capability is uncertain. While it is reasonable to hypothesize that exposure to estrogen-like compounds, whatever their source, could adversely affect human health, biological plausibility alone is an insufficient basis for concluding that environmental endocrine modulators have adversely affected humans. Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is a potent, synthetic estrogen administered under a variety of dosing protocols to millions of women in the belief (now known to be mistaken) that it would prevent miscarriage. As a result of this use, substantial in utero exposure to large numbers of male and female offspring occurred. Numerous studies have been conducted on the health consequences of in utero DES exposure among the adult offspring of these women. There are also extensive animal data on the effects of DES and there is a high degree of concordance between effects observed in animals and humans. The extensive human data in DES-exposed cohorts provide a useful basis for assessing the biological plausibility that potential adverse effects might occur following in utero exposure to compounds identified as environmental estrogens. The effects observed in both animals and humans following in utero exposure to sufficient doses of DES are consistent with basic principles of dose response as well as the possibility of maternal dose levels below which potential non-cancer effects may not occur. Significant differences in estrogenic potency between DES and chemicals identified to date as environmental estrogens, as well as an even larger number of naturally occurring dietary phytoestrogens, must be taken into account when inferring potential effects from in utero exposure to any of these substances. The antiestrogenic properties of many of these same exogenous compounds might also diminish net estrogenic effects. Based on the extensive data on DES-exposed cohorts, it appears unlikely that in utero exposure to usual levels of environmental estrogenic substances, from whatever source, would be sufficient to produce many of the effects (i.e., endometriosis, adverse effects on the male reproductive tract, male and female fertility problems, alterations of...

Formaldehyde is a well-studied chemical and effects from inhalation exposures have been extensively characterized in numerous controlled studies with human volunteers, including asthmatics and other sensitive individuals, which provide a rich database on exposure concentrations that can reliably produce the symptoms of sensory irritation. Although individuals can differ in their sensitivity to odor and eye irritation, the majority of authoritative reviews of the formaldehyde literature have concluded that an air concentration of 0.3 ppm will provide protection from eye irritation for virtually everyone. A weight of evidence-based formaldehyde exposure limit of 0.1 ppm (100 ppb) is recommended as an indoor air level for all individuals for odor detection and sensory irritation. It has recently been suggested by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the National Toxicology Program (NTP), and the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) that formaldehyde is causally associated with nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and leukemia. This has led US EPA to conclude that irritation is not the most sensitive toxic endpoint and that carcinogenicity should dictate how to establish exposure limits for formaldehyde. In this review, a number of lines of reasoning and substantial scientific evidence are described and discussed, which leads to a conclusion that neither point of contact nor systemic effects of any type, including NPC or leukemia, are causally associated with exposure to formaldehyde. This conclusion supports the view that the equivocal epidemiology studies that suggest otherwise are almost certainly flawed by identified or yet to be unidentified confounding variables. Thus, this assessment concludes that a formaldehyde indoor air limit of 0.1 ppm should protect even particularly susceptible individuals from both irritation effects and any potential cancer hazard.

Advanced paternal age combined with maternal age significantly influences the incidence of Down syndrome. This effect may represent a paradigm for other genetic abnormalities in children of older fathers.

No abstract

Drawing on all data available in 2003, the WoE of the human epidemiological data for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) demonstrates that exposure to a mixture of PCBs (i.e. Aroclors) did not pose a cancer risk to humans ( Golden et al. (2003) . This evaluation was based on criteria established by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as on a different methodology used by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Subsequently, at least 15 more studies on the potential cancer risks (both incidence and mortality) of PCBs have been published. All studies published since 2003 are critically reviewed using the criteria established by the EPA (2005) and ATSDR (2000) . None of the studies published since 2003 change the conclusions drawn by Golden et al. (2003) : "that the weight of evidence does not support a causal association for PCBs and human cancer". This conclusion pertains to all cancers combined, as well as to the various cancers that have been sporadically reported in the occupational cohort mortality studies. With respect to breast cancer risk, the WoE is compelling that environmental exposure to PCBs is not etiologically implicated in breast-cancer risk. This conclusion is supported by the consistently negative findings for increased breast-cancer mortality in occupational studies, which now involve almost 9,000 women occupationally exposed to PCBs. Similarly, the incidence studies in which PCB background levels are reported to be associated with increased risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or prostate, testicular, and intestinal cancer are not corroborated by occupational cohort studies with PCB exposures far in excess of environmental exposures. The most likely explanation for these discordant findings is discussed in this review. Finally, the recent elucidation of the mode of action by which PCBs promote liver tumors in rats, combined with the demonstration that none of the key events in the mode of action occurred until substantial tissue accumulation of total PCBs had occurred, casts further doubt that PCB exposure at environmental or occupational levels poses a carcinogenic risk to humans. The dramatic differences between rodents and humans in sensitivity to PCB-mediated induction of CYP1A1 suggests that even occupational exposures to PCBs have never resulted in PCB body burdens approaching the levels required to initiate the sequence of events involved in the promotion of liver tumors in rodents.

Hypospadias is significantly associated with increasing maternal age. Women who elect to delay childbearing until their mid 30s or later should be aware that their offspring are at increased risk of hypospadias.

No abstract