ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2016
Scientific Issues Relevant to Setting Regulatory Criteria to Identify Endocrine-Disrupting Substances in the European Union.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 56 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Need for an Alternative Health Claim Process for Foods Based on Both Nutrient and Contaminant Profiles.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Association of maternal exposure to endocrine disruptor chemicals with cardio-metabolic risk factors in children during childhood: a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.Diabetology & metabolic syndrome · 2024Review
- The regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals to minimize their impact on health.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2023Review
- Lifestyle interventions to reduce endocrine-disrupting phthalate and phenol exposures among reproductive age men and women: A review and future steps.Environment international · 2022Review
- Impact of Chemical Endocrine Disruptors and Hormone Modulators on the Endocrine System.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Role of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the Pathogenesis of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Comprehensive Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: economic, regulatory, and policy implications.The lancet. Diabetes & endocrinology · 2020Review
- Evidence for Bisphenol B Endocrine Properties: Scientific and Regulatory Perspectives.Environmental health perspectives · 2019Review
- Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals: Effects on Endocrine Glands.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2019Review
- Assessment of occupational exposure to pesticide mixtures with endocrine-disrupting activity.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Article
- Rationale for Environmental Hygiene towards global protection of fetuses and young children from adverse lifestyle factors.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2018Article
- Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than 'sound science', should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2016Review
- Endocrine Society of India's National White Paper on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals - A Call for Action.Indian journal of endocrinology and metabolismArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEndocrine disruptors (EDs) are defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as exogenous compounds or mixtures that alter function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations. European regulations on pesticides, biocides, cosmetics, and industrial chemicals require the European Commission to establish scientific criteria to define EDs.
objectivesWe address the scientific relevance of four options for the identification of EDs proposed by the European Commission. DISCUSSION: Option 1, which does not define EDs and leads to using interim criteria unrelated to the WHO definition of EDs, is not relevant. Options 2 and 3 rely on the WHO definition of EDs, which is widely accepted by the scientific community, with option 3 introducing additional categories based on the strength of evidence (suspected EDs and endocrine-active substances). Option 4 adds potency to the WHO definition, as a decision criterion. We argue that potency is dependent on the adverse effect considered and is scientifically ambiguous, and note that potency is not used as a criterion to define other particularly hazardous substances such as carcinogens and reproductive toxicants. The use of potency requires a context that goes beyond hazard identification and corresponds to risk characterization, in which potency (or, more relevantly, the dose-response function) is combined with exposure levels.
conclusionsThere is scientific agreement regarding the adequacy of the WHO definition of EDs. The potency concept is not relevant to the identification of particularly serious hazards such as EDs. As is common practice for carcinogens, mutagens, and reproductive toxicants, a multi-level classification of ED based on the WHO definition, and not considering potency, would be relevant (corresponding to option 3 proposed by the European Commission). CITATION: Slama R, Bourguignon JP, Demeneix B, Ivell R, Panzica G, Kortenkamp A, Zoeller RT. 2016. Scientific issues relevant to setting regulatory criteria to identify endocrine disrupting substances in the European Union. Environ Health Perspect 124:1497-1503; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP217.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.