Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and risk of diabetes: an evidence-based review

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to review the epidemiological and experimental evidence linking background exposure to a selection of environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) with diabetes and impaired glucose metabolism. The review summarises the literature on both cross-sectional and prospective studies in humans, as well as experimental in vivo and in vitro studies. The findings were subjected to evidence grading according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) classification. We found >40 cross-sectional and seven prospective studies regarding EDCs and risk of diabetes. Taken together, there is moderate evidence for a relationship between exposure to dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (p,p′-DDE), a metabolite of the pesticide dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, and diabetes development. Regarding polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), it is likely that the rodent models used are not appropriate, and therefore the evidence is poorer than for p,p′-DDE. For other EDCs, such as bisphenol A, phthalates and perfluorinated chemicals, the evidence is scarce, since very few prospective studies exist. Brominated flame retardants do not seem to be associated with a disturbed glucose tolerance. Thus, evidence is accumulating that EDCs might be involved in diabetes development. Best evidence exists for p,p′-DDE. For other chemicals, both prospective studies and supporting animal data are still lacking.

Mitochondria as target of endocrine-disrupting chemicals: implications for type 2 diabetes

“…Human exposure mainly occurs by ingestion, inhalation and dermal uptake (Gore et al 2015). The current knowledge on the relationship between EDCs and T2D is briefly discussed below and in other comprehensive reviews (Alonso-Magdalena et al 2011, Gore et al 2015, Heindel et al 2017, Mimoto et al 2017, Lind & Lind 2018.…”

Persistent Organic Pollutants and Type 2 Diabetes: A Critical Review of Review Articles

“…Since 2010, we identified nine published review articles about human studies on POPs and T2D ( 1 – 9 ). Therefore, rather than adding one more ordinary review article on the same topic, this narrative review was written to bring up several provocative issues which are commonly missed by epidemiologists on POPs and T2D.…”

“…Also, among various POP compounds, we deal with chlorinated POPs because they are ones which have shown the most consistent results in human studies. The evidence from brominated or fluorinated POPs is weak and inconsistent ( 9 ). Thus, unless we specify brominated or fluorinated, POPs means chlorinated POPs in this review.…”

Environmental Contaminants and Congenital Heart Defects: A Re-Evaluation of the Evidence

“…While around 30% of all CHDs can be attributed to chromosomal or single gene disorders or other known causes, the cause of the remaining 70% remains unknown [ 7 ]. Many environmental contaminants have now been classified as endocrine disruptors [ 8 ] and may also act as teratogens through that mechanism, playing an important role in CHD causation. It has also now become widely recognised that mothers share their chemical load with the fetus and while breast feeding [ 9 ].…”