Endocrine Disruption: Current approaches for regulatory testing and assessment of plant protection products are fit for purpose.

The ongoing debate concerning the regulation of endocrine disruptors, has increasingly led to questions concerning the current testing of chemicals and whether this is adequate for the assessment of potential endocrine disrupting effects. This paper describes the current testing approaches for plant protection product (PPP) active substances in the European Union and the United States and how they relate to the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties for human and environmental health. This includes a discussion of whether the current testing approaches cover modalities other than the estrogen, androgen, thyroid and steroidogenesis (EATS) pathways, sensitive windows of exposure, adequate assessment of human endocrine disorders and wildlife species, and the determination of thresholds for endocrine disruption. It is concluded, that the scope and nature of the core and triggered data requirements for PPP active substances are scientifically robust to address adverse effects mediated through endocrine mode(s) of action and to characterise these effects in terms of dose response.

Current limitations and recommendations to improve testing for the environmental assessment of endocrine active substances.

In the present study, existing regulatory frameworks and test systems for assessing potential endocrine active chemicals are described, and associated challenges are discussed, along with proposed approaches to address these challenges. Regulatory frameworks vary somewhat across geographies, but all basically evaluate whether a chemical possesses endocrine activity and whether this activity can result in adverse outcomes either to humans or to the environment. Current test systems include in silico, in vitro, and in vivo techniques focused on detecting potential endocrine activity, and in vivo tests that collect apical data to detect possible adverse effects. These test systems are currently designed to robustly assess endocrine activity and/or adverse effects in the estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormone signaling pathways; however, there are some limitations of current test systems for evaluating endocrine hazard and risk. These limitations include a lack of certainty regarding: 1) adequately sensitive species and life stages; 2) mechanistic endpoints that are diagnostic for endocrine pathways of concern; and 3) the linkage between mechanistic responses and apical, adverse outcomes. Furthermore, some existing test methods are resource intensive with regard to time, cost, and use of animals. However, based on recent experiences, there are opportunities to improve approaches to and guidance for existing test methods and to reduce uncertainty. For example, in vitro high-throughput screening could be used to prioritize chemicals for testing and provide insights as to the most appropriate assays for characterizing hazard and risk. Other recommendations include adding endpoints for elucidating connections between mechanistic effects and adverse outcomes, identifying potentially sensitive taxa for which test methods currently do not exist, and addressing key endocrine pathways of possible concern in addition to those associated with estrogen, androgen, and thyroid signaling. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2017;13:302-316. © 2016 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Risk assessment of endocrine active chemicals: identifying chemicals of regulatory concern.

The European regulation on plant protection products (1107/2009) (EC, 2009a), the revisions to the biocides Directive (COM[2009]267) (EC, 2009b), and the regulation concerning chemicals (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 'REACH') (EC.2006) only support the marketing and use of chemical products on the basis that they do not induce endocrine disruption in humans or wildlife species. In the absence of agreed guidance on how to identify and evaluate endocrine activity and disruption within these pieces of legislation a European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) task force was formed to provide scientific criteria that may be used within the context of these three legislative documents. The resulting ECETOC technical report (ECETOC, 2009a) and the associated workshop (ECETOC, 2009b) presented a science-based concept on how to identify endocrine activity and disrupting properties of chemicals for both human health and the environment. The synthesis of the technical report and the workshop report was published by the ECETOC task force (Bars et al., 2011a,b). Specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine activity and disrupting properties that integrate information from both regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies were proposed. These criteria combined the nature of the adverse effects detected in studies which give concern for endocrine toxicity with an understanding of the mode of action of toxicity so that adverse effects can be explained scientifically. A key element in the data evaluation is the consideration of all available information in a weight-of-evidence approach. However, to be able to discriminate chemicals with endocrine properties of low concern from those of higher concern (for regulatory purposes), the task force recognised that the concept needed further refinement. Following a discussion of the key factors at a second workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists (ECETOC, 2011), the task force developed further guidance, which is presented in this paper. For human health assessments these factors include the relevance to humans of the endocrine mechanism of toxicity, the specificity of the endocrine effects with respect to other potential toxic effects, the potency of the chemical to induce endocrine toxicity and consideration of exposure levels. For ecotoxicological assessments the key considerations include specificity and potency, but also extend to the consideration of population relevance and negligible exposure. It is intended that these complement and reinforce the approach originally described and previously published in this journal (Bars et al., 2011a,b).

Science based guidance for the assessment of endocrine disrupting properties of chemicals.

The European legislation on plant protection products (Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009) and biocides (Directive 98/8/EC), as well as the regulation concerning chemicals (Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 'REACH') only support the marketing and use of chemical products on the basis that they do not induce endocrine disruption in humans or non-target species. However, there is currently no agreed guidance on how to identify and evaluate endocrine activity and disruption. Consequently, an ECETOC task force was formed to provide scientific criteria that may be used within the context of these three legislative documents. Specific scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties that integrate information from both regulatory (eco)toxicity studies and mechanistic/screening studies are proposed. These criteria combine the nature of the adverse effects detected in studies which give concern for endocrine toxicity with an understanding of the mode of action of toxicity so that adverse effects can be explained scientifically. The criteria developed are presented in the form of flow charts for assessing relevant effects for both humans and wildlife species. In addition, since not all chemicals with endocrine disrupting properties are of equal hazard, assessment of potency is also proposed to discriminate chemicals of high concern from those of lower concern. The guidance presented in this paper includes refinements made to an initial proposal following discussion of the criteria at a workshop of invited regulatory, academic and industry scientists.

Multi-criteria decision analysis of test endpoints for detecting the effects of endocrine active substances in fish full life cycle tests.

Fish full life cycle (FFLC) tests are increasingly required in the ecotoxicological assessment of endocrine active substances. However, FFLC tests have not been internationally standardized or validated, and it is currently unclear how such tests should best be designed to provide statistically sound and ecologically relevant results. This study describes how the technique of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to elicit the views of fish ecologists, aquatic ecotoxicologists and statisticians on optimal experimental designs for assessing the effects of endocrine active chemicals on fish. In MCDA qualitative criteria (that can be valued, but not quantified) and quantitative criteria can be used in a structured decision-making process. The aim of the present application of MCDA is to present a logical means of collating both data and expert opinions on the best way to focus FFLC tests on endocrine active substances. The analyses are presented to demonstrate how MCDA can be used in this context. Each of 3 workgroups focused on 1 of 3 species: fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), Japanese medaka (Oryzias latipes), and zebrafish (Danio rerio). Test endpoints (e.g., fecundity, growth, gonadal histopathology) were scored for each species for various desirable features such as statistical power and ecological relevance, with the importance of these features determined by assigning weights to them, using a swing weighting procedure. The endpoint F1 fertilization success consistently emerged as a preferred option for all species. In addition, some endpoints scored highly in particular species, such as development of secondary sexual characteristics (fathead minnow) and sex ratio (zebrafish). Other endpoints such as hatching success ranked relatively highly and should be considered as useful endpoints to measure in tests with any of the fish species. MCDA also indicated relatively less preferred endpoints in fish life cycle tests. For example, intensive histopathology consistently ranked low, as did measurement of diagnostic biomarkers, such as vitellogenin, most likely due to the high costs of these methods or their limited ecological relevance. Life cycle tests typically do not focus on identifying toxic modes and/or mechanisms of action, but rather, single chemical concentration-response relationships for endpoints (e.g., survival, growth, reproduction) that can be translated into evaluation of risk. It is, therefore, likely to be an inefficient use of limited resources to measure these mechanism-specific endpoints in life cycle tests, unless the value of such endpoints for answering particular questions justifies their integration in specific case studies.