Analysis of different preferences for the EU's regulatory options for endocrine disruptor identification criteria using argumentation theory.

What criteria are most suitable to identify endocrine disrupting substances (EDSs) for regulatory purposes in the EU? The results of the European Commission's public consultation, as part of the process to establish identification criteria for EDSs, show that different regulatory options are supported. Some respondents prefer an option including hazard characterization considerations, whereas others prefer an option that avoids these considerations and introduces several hazard-identification based weight-of-evidence categories. In this study, the argumentation underlying the different preferences for identification criteria are analyzed and compared using pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT). All responses of non-anonymous, national governments that submitted a response in English (n = 17) were included. Responses of other stakeholder organizations were included if a Google News search returned an opinionated presence in the media on the subject (n = 9). Five topical themes and 21 underlying issues were identified. The themes are 1) mechanistic understanding of EDSs, 2) regulatory considerations related to the identification of EDSs, 3) consistency with existing regulatory frameworks, and 4) evaluations of specific issues related to a category approach and 5) related to including potency. We argue that two overarching (implicit) 'advocacy coalitions' can be discerned, that adopted contrasting positions towards the identified themes and issues. Among these 'coalitions', there appears to be consensus about the necessity of having 'science-based' criteria, though different perspectives exist as to what the most accurate mechanistic understanding of EDSs entails. To move the discussion forward, we argue that a societal dialogue would be beneficial, where EDS science and regulation are discussed as interrelated themes.

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective.

Why do countries regulate, or prefer to regulate, environmental health risks such as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and endocrine disruptors differently? A wide variety of theories, models, and frameworks can be used to help answer this question, though the resulting answer will strongly depend on the theoretical perspective that is applied. In this theoretical review, we will explore eight conceptual frameworks, from different areas of science, which will offer eight different potential explanations as to why international differences occur in environmental health risk management. We are particularly interested in frameworks that could shed light on the role of scientific expertise within risk management processes. The frameworks included in this review are the Risk Assessment Paradigm, research into the roles of experts as policy advisors, the Psychometric Paradigm, the Cultural Theory of Risk, participatory approaches to risk assessment and risk management, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and Hofstede's Model of National Cultures. We drew from our knowledge and experiences regarding a diverse set of academic disciplines to pragmatically assemble a multidisciplinary set of frameworks. From the ideas and concepts offered by the eight frameworks, we derive pertinent questions to be used in further empirical work and we present an overarching framework to depict the various links that could be drawn between the frameworks.