Science, Consensus, and Endocrine‐disrupting Chemicals: Rethinking Disagreement in Expert Deliberations

McIlroy-Young, Bronwyn; Leopold, Annegaaike; Öberg, Gunilla

doi:10.1002/ieam.4385

Cited by 6 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some prominent examples of divergent evaluations from environmental and public health that were discussed and analyzed during the 2021 workshop and the EEA 2008 workshops included bisphenol A (BPA), pesticides spray drift, hexavalent chromium, glyphosate, nitrogen dioxide, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), fluoride, endocrine disrupting substances [ 14 ], and extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF-EMF) radiations from power lines and from mobile telecommunications. Such case studies revealed many of the reasons why there were divergent evaluations between different risk assessments, such as those between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and European Union (EU) Chemical and Food Agencies over glyphosate; and between four risk assessments on PFOA that produced very different recommendations on protective exposure limits.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

Chartres¹,

Sass

Gee

et al. 2022

Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In February 2021, over one hundred scientists and policy experts participated in a web-based Workshop to discuss the ways that divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties are used to delay timely protection of human health and the environment from exposures to hazardous agents. The Workshop arose from a previous workshop organized by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2008 and which also drew on case studies from the EEA reports on ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (2001, 2013). These reports documented dozens of hazardous agents including many chemicals, for which risk reduction measures were delayed for decades after scientists and others had issued early and later warnings about the harm likely to be caused by those agents. Results Workshop participants used recent case studies including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Extremely Low Frequency – Electrical Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF fields), glyphosate, and Bisphenol A (BPA) to explore myriad reasons for divergent outcomes of evaluations, which has led to delayed and inadequate protection of the public’s health. Strategies to overcome these barriers must, therefore, at a minimum include approaches that 1) Make better use of existing data and information, 2) Ensure timeliness, 3) Increase transparency, consistency and minimize bias in evidence evaluations, and 4) Minimize the influence of financial conflicts of interest. Conclusion The recommendations should enhance the production of “actionable evidence,” that is, reliable evaluations of the scientific evidence to support timely actions to protect health and environments from exposures to hazardous agents. The recommendations are applicable to policy and regulatory settings at the local, state, federal and international levels.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…13 George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA. 14 Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Hartford, CT, USA. 15 Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.…”

Section: Abbreviationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

Chartres¹,

Sass

Gee

et al. 2022

Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Scientific Advice Mechanism, in cooperation with the Scientific Advice for Policy by European Academies, has recommended panel deliberation techniques, taking care that differing views are identified and recognized (EU, 2019 ). Unintended consequences of regulatory decisions will be minimized, as alternative approaches might have been foreseen during the deliberation, and thus making the final decision more robust (Beatty & Moore, 2010 ; McIlroy‐Young et al, 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The EU Green Deal's ambition for a toxic‐free environment: Filling the gap for science‐based policymaking

Dijk

Leopold

Flerlage

et al. 2021

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Around the world, many ambitious environmental conventions and regulations have been implemented over recent decades. Despite this, the environment is still deteriorating. An increase in the volume and diversity of chemicals is one of the main drivers of this deterioration, of which biodiversity loss is a telling indicator. In response to this situation, in October 2020, a chemicals strategy for sustainability (CSS) was published in the EU. The CSS is the first regional framework aiming to address chemical pollution in a holistic manner. The CSS covers the complete lifecycle of a chemical, including the design of better substances and remediation options, to remove chemicals from the environment. The strategy contains terms, such as a "toxic-free environment," for which no clear definition exists, potentially hampering the implementation of the CSS. In this paper, a definition for a "toxic-free environment" is proposed on the basis of a survey and a discussion held at the 2020 SETAC Europe Annual Meeting. In addition, key issues that are absent from the CSS but are considered to be key for the realization of a toxic-free environment are identified. To achieve the policy goals, it is recommended to align the definition of risk across the different chemical legislations, to establish a platform for open data and data sharing, and to increase the utility and use of novel scientific findings in policymaking, through the development of a strong science to regulation feedback mechanism and vice versa. The paper concludes that environmental scientists have the tools to address the key challenges presented in the CSS. However, an extra step is needed by both policymakers and scientists to develop methods, processes and tools, to increase the robustness and transparency of deliberation processes, and the utility of science. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;00:1-9.

show abstract

“…Obviously this divide now also includes the thinking behind basic scientific principles such as reproducibility, potency and biological plausibility. In a recent commentary (McIlroy-Young et al 2021) on this divide between risk and hazard-based assessments on ED and between classical toxicologists and ED researchers, it was stated that "it is time to retire consensus thinking in regulatory toxicology and make way for methods, processes, and tools that embrace a plurality of viewpoints" stating "there is some truth to both stories" (McIlroy-Young et al 2021). However, as illustrated here, the gap on the lowest doses showing adverse effects for BPA between these opposing views is around five to six orders of magnitude wide.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scientific discrepancies in European regulatory proposals on endocrine disruptors—REACH regulation quo vadis?

Natsch

2021

Arch Toxicol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU chemical strategy for sustainability places a high focus on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (ED), the importance of their identification with increased testing and a ban in consumer products by a generic approach. It is assumed that for ED no threshold and hence no safe dose exists, leading to this generic approach. This view appears to be linked to the claim that for ED ‘low-dose non-monotonic dose response’ (low-dose NMDR) effects are observed. Without this hypothesis, there are no scientific reasons why classical risk assessment cannot be applied to the ED mode-of-action. Thus, whether for ED low-dose NMDR effects are considered a reproducible scientific fact by European authorities is Gretchen’s question in this politicized field. Recent documents by the SCCS, EFSA and ECHA reviewed herein illustrate the diverging views within European scientific bodies on this issue. Furthermore, ED researchers never replicated findings on low-dose NMDR in blinded inter-laboratory experiments and the CLARITY-BPA core studies could not find evidence for reproducible NMDR for BPA. ECHA proposes a battery of in vitro tests to test all chemicals for ED properties. However, these tests were never validated for relevance and their high positivity rate could lead to increased follow-up animal testing. Based on (i) lack of reproducibility data for low-dose NMDR, (ii) diverging views within European authorities on NMDR and (iii) lack of fully validated in vitro test methods it might be premature to fast-track the wide-ranging changes in the regulatory landscape proposed by the authorities ultimately leading to drastically increased animal testing.

show abstract

Science, Consensus, and Endocrine‐disrupting Chemicals: Rethinking Disagreement in Expert Deliberations

Cited by 6 publications

References 5 publications

Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

The EU Green Deal's ambition for a toxic‐free environment: Filling the gap for science‐based policymaking

Scientific discrepancies in European regulatory proposals on endocrine disruptors—REACH regulation quo vadis?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About