Categorizing the characteristics of human carcinogens: a need for specificity.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has recently proposed employing "ten key characteristics of human carcinogens" (TKCs) to determine the potential of agents for harmful effects. The TKCs seem likely to confuse the unsatisfactory correlation from testing regimes that have ignored the differences evident when cellular changes are compared in short and long-lived species, with their very different stem cell and somatic cell phylogenies. The proposed characteristics are so broad that their use will lead to an increase in the current unacceptably high rate of false positives. It could be an informative experiment to take well-established approved therapeutics with well-known human safety profiles and test them against this new TKC paradigm. Cancers are initiated and driven by heritable and transient changes in gene expression, expand clonally, and progress via additional associated acquired mutations and epigenetic alterations that provide cells with an evolutionary advantage. The genotoxicity testing protocols currently employed and required by regulation, emphasize testing for the mutational potential of the test agent. Two-year, chronic rodent cancer bioassays are intended to test for the entire spectrum of carcinogenic transformation. The use of cytotoxic doses causing increased, sustained cell proliferation that facilitates accumulated genetic damage leads to a high false-positive rate of tumor induction. Current cancer hazard assessment protocols and weight-of-the-evidence analysis of agent-specific cancer risk align poorly with the pathogenesis of human carcinoma and so need modernization and improvement in ways suggested here.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: in support of the BfR position.

The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability (CSS) asserts that both human health and the environment are presently threatened and that further regulation is necessary. In a recent Guest Editorial, members of the German competent authority for risk assessment, the BfR, raised concerns about the scientific justification for this strategy. The complexity and interdependence of the networks of regulation of chemical substances have ensured that public health and wellbeing in the EU have continuously improved. A continuous process of improvement in consumer protection is clearly desirable but any initiative directed towards this objective must be based on scientific knowledge. It must not confound risk with other factors in determining policy. This conclusion is fully supported in the present Commentary including the request to improve both, data collection and the time-consuming and bureaucratic procedures that delay the publication of regulations.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity: how to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine-disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine-disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower than S-EDCs. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea, and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Clinical epidemiology studies on potential effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) should exclude subjects with obesity as determined by BMI.

Obesity as determined by BMI is a confounder in clinical evaluations of the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Validated regulatory tests are used to determine whether a chemical acts via a mode of action (MOA) that affects estrogen, androgen, thyroid or steroidogenic pathways. Test batteries for evaluating EDCs include QSAR, in vitro assays, and animal testing. Studies suggest that EDCs pose the greatest risk during prenatal and early infant development when organ systems are developing. Health effects include lowered fertility, endometriosis, and cancers associated with estrogenic activity. Epidemiology studies on adverse effects of EDCs in the general population are difficult to conduct due to very low exposures of EDCs in non-occupational cohorts, and lack of exposure measurements between cases and controls. In contrast with very low levels of hormonal perturbation from nano-molar to micro-molar exposures to EDCs, adipose tissue in obesity alters estrogen, testosterone, thyroid stimulating hormone, and inflammation levels. Obesity in pregnancy and gestational diabetes are associated with adverse outcomes in infants and children including autism, poor motor skills, lowered IQ, and altered birth weight. Neonatal effects of obesity are confounded by average lower socio-economic status. The already perturbed endocrine balance in overweight or obese persons renders them particularly worthy subjects for clinical epidemiology investigations on the possible effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals. However, inclusion of subjects with obesity requires accounting for potentially confounding effects of the hormonal influences arising from excess adiposity. If subjects with obesity are to be included in clinical epidemiological evaluations related to hormonal effects, the subjects should be classified by body fat percentage rather than by the much less exact measure of body mass index (BMI).

A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published a monograph in 2015 concluding that glyphosate is "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A) based on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in experimental animals. It was also concluded that there was strong evidence of genotoxicity and oxidative stress. Four Expert Panels have been convened for the purpose of conducting a detailed critique of the evidence in light of IARC's assessment and to review all relevant information pertaining to glyphosate exposure, animal carcinogenicity, genotoxicity, and epidemiologic studies. Two of the Panels (animal bioassay and genetic toxicology) also provided a critique of the IARC position with respect to conclusions made in these areas. The incidences of neoplasms in the animal bioassays were found not to be associated with glyphosate exposure on the basis that they lacked statistical strength, were inconsistent across studies, lacked dose-response relationships, were not associated with preneoplasia, and/or were not plausible from a mechanistic perspective. The overall weight of evidence from the genetic toxicology data supports a conclusion that glyphosate (including GBFs and AMPA) does not pose a genotoxic hazard and therefore, should not be considered support for the classification of glyphosate as a genotoxic carcinogen. The assessment of the epidemiological data found that the data do not support a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma while the data were judged to be too sparse to assess a potential relationship between glyphosate exposure and multiple myeloma. As a result, following the review of the totality of the evidence, the Panels concluded that the data do not support IARC's conclusion that glyphosate is a "probable human carcinogen" and, consistent with previous regulatory assessments, further concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans.

Bruce Nathan Ames - Paradigm shifts inside the cancer research revolution.

Dr. Bruce Ames turned 92 on December 16, 2020. He considers his most recent work linking adequate consumption of 30 known vitamins and minerals with successful aging to be his most important contribution. With the passage of time, it is not uncommon for the accomplishments of a well-known scientist to undergo a parsimonious reductionism in the public mind - Pasteur's vaccine, Mendel's peas, Pavlov's dogs, Ames' test. Those of us in the research generation subsequent to Dr. Ames' are undoubtedly affected by our own unconscious tendencies toward accepting the outstanding achievements of the past as commonplace. In doing so, seminal advances made by earlier investigators are often inadvertently subsumed into common knowledge. But having followed Ames' work since the mid-1970s, we are cognizant that the eponymous Ames Test is but a single chapter in a long and rich narrative. That narrative begins with Ames' classic studies on the histidine operon of Salmonella, for which he was elected to the National Academy of Sciences. A summary of the historical progression of the understanding of chemical carcinogenesis to which Ames and his colleagues contributed is provided. Any summary of a topic as expansive and complex as the ongoing unraveling of the mechanisms underlying chemical carcinogenesis will only touch upon some of the major conceptual advances to which Ames and his colleagues contributed. We hope that scientists of all ages familiar with Ames only through the eponymous Ames Test will further investigate the historical progression of the conceptualization of cancer caused by chemical exposure. As the field of chemical carcinogenesis gradually moves away from primary reliance on animal testing to alternative protocols under the rubric of New Approach Methodologies (NAM) an understanding of where we have been might help to guide where we should go.

Obesity as a Source of Endogenous Compounds Associated With Chronic Disease: A Review.

In 2014, it was estimated that more than 1.9 billion adults were overweight with over 600 million classifiable as obese. Approximately two-thirds of U.S. adults over 20 years of age are currently overweight with about 35% classified as obese, a figure thought likely to reach 42% by 2030 in those over 18 years of age. Adipose cells from stored body fat secrete estrogen and a very large number (> 500) of biologically active substances termed adipokines, in addition to inducing, by other cell-driven effects, pathological alterations in insulin pathways. The U.S. National Cancer Institute reports that exposure to the hormone disrupting and proinflammatory effects of excess adipose tissue are associated with an increased risk for 11 different cancers. Obesity is also associated with a number of serious non-neoplastic conditions including metabolic syndrome and type 2 diabetes; menstrual cycle irregularities and lowered fertility (men and women); and abnormal bone morphology in a subset of female patients. In men hypogonadism, low testosterone levels, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and lowered sperm counts have been reported. In developed countries, the endogenous adverse health burden associated with obesity is only matched, quantitatively and qualitatively, by the exogenous toxicity of cigarette smoking. The investigation of possible hormonal and/or proinflammatory effects of chemicals should include an assessment of the profound endocrine alterations associated with obesity.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent than S-EDCs. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Human exposure to synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) is generally negligible as compared to natural compounds with higher or comparable endocrine activity. How to evaluate the risk of the S-EDCs?

Theoretically, both synthetic endocrine disrupting chemicals (S-EDCs) and natural (exogenous and endogenous) endocrine disrupting chemicals (N-EDCs) can interact with endocrine receptors and disturb hormonal balance. However, compared to endogenous hormones, S-EDCs are only weak partial agonists with receptor affinities several orders of magnitude lower. Thus, to elicit observable effects, S-EDCs require considerably higher concentrations to attain sufficient receptor occupancy or to displace natural hormones and other endogenous ligands. Significant exposures to exogenous N-EDCs may result from ingestion of foods such as soy-based diets, green tea and sweet mustard. While their potencies are lower as compared to natural endogenous hormones, they usually are considerably more potent. Effects of exogenous N-EDCs on the endocrine system were observed at high dietary intakes. A causal relation between their mechanism of action and these effects is established and biologically plausible. In contrast, the assumption that the much lower human exposures to S-EDCs may induce observable endocrine effects is not plausible. Hence, it is not surprising that epidemiological studies searching for an association between S-EDC exposure and health effects have failed. Regarding testing for potential endocrine effects, a scientifically justified screen should use in vitro tests to compare potencies of S-EDCs with those of reference N-EDCs. When the potency of the S-EDC is similar or smaller than that of the N-EDC, further testing in laboratory animals and regulatory consequences are not warranted.

Upholding science in health, safety and environmental risk assessments and regulations.

A public appeal has been advanced by a large group of scientists, concerned that science has been misused in attempting to quantify and regulate unmeasurable hazards and risks.1 The appeal recalls that science is unable to evaluate hazards that cannot be measured, and that science in such cases should not be invoked to justify risk assessments in health, safety and environmental regulations. The appeal also notes that most national and international statutes delineating the discretion of regulators are ambiguous about what rules of evidence ought to apply. Those statutes should be revised to ensure that the evidence for regulatory action is grounded on the standards of the scientific method, whenever feasible. When independent scientific evidence is not possible, policies and regulations should be informed by publicly debated trade-offs between socially desirable uses and social perceptions of affordable precaution. This article explores the premises, implications and actions supporting the appeal and its objectives.

Atrazine and cancer: a review of the epidemiologic evidence.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the conflicting reports from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Scientific Advisory Panel (Panel) on the carcinogenicity of atrazine in order to determine whether the results from epidemiologic studies support a causal relationship between atrazine and any specific cancer. We reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency and Panel reports in the context of all the epidemiologic studies on the specific cancers of interest. A weight-of-evidence approach leads to the conclusion that there is no causal association between atrazine and cancer and that occasional positive results can be attributed to bias or chance. Atrazine appears to be a good candidate for a category of herbicides with a probable absence of cancer risk. Atrazine should be treated for regulatory and public health purposes as an agent unlikely to pose a cancer risk to humans.