WRC General Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
EUROPEAN COMMISSION STUDY ON THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF 12 SUBSTANCES IN THE CONTEXT OF ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER PRIORITY LIST OF ACTIONS WRc-NSF Ref: UC 6052 NOVEMBER 2002 . STUDY ON THE SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF 12 SUBSTANCES IN THE CONTEXT OF ENDOCRINE DISRUPTER PRIORITY LIST OF ACTIONS Report No.: UC 6052 November 2002 Authors: I Johnson and P Harvey Contract Manager: I Johnson Contract No.: 12834-0 RESTRICTION: This report has the following limited distribution: External: Client Internal: Authors and Contract Manager Any enquiries relating to this report should be referred to the authors at the following address: WRc-NSF, Henley Road, Medmenham, Marlow, Buckinghamshire, SL7 2HD. Telephone: + 44 (0)1491 636500 Fax: + 44 (0)1491 636501 The contents of this document are subject to copyright and all rights are reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior written consent of the copyright owner. This document has been produced by WRc-NSF. European Commission EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Background In June 2001, the Commission adopted a follow up Communication to the Council and European Parliament on the implementation of the Community Strategy for Endocrine Disrupters [COM(2001)262]. In this Communication (EC 2001) the Commission proposed a priority list of actions to further evaluate the role of specific “candidate” substances in endocrine disruption. One of these priority actions was the initiation of an in-depth evaluation of a group of 12 candidate substances consisting of 9 industrial substances (2,2’-bis(4-(2,3- epoxypropyl)phenyl)propane, Carbon disulphide, 4-Chloro-3-methylphenol, 2,4- Dichlorophenol, 4-Nitrotoluene, o-Phenylphenol, Resorcinol, 4-tert Octylphenol and 2,2’,4,4’- Tetrabrominated diphenyl ether or tetra BDE) and three natural/synthetic hormones (Oestrone, Oestradiol and Ethinyloestradiol). This report comprises a review of the 12 substances with the following objectives: 1. Conduct an in-depth evaluation of nine (9) candidate substances for which scientific evidence of endocrine disruption or potential endocrine disruption was identified in the BKH report and which are neither restricted nor currently being addressed under existing Community legislation; 2. Conduct an in-depth evaluation of three (3) synthetic/natural hormones, oestrone, oestradiol and ethinyloestradiol, with a particular focus on up to date evidence of environmental exposure and related effects. 3. Identify specific cases of consumer or ecosystem exposure to these substances, with particular attention to potentially vulnerable consumer groups such as children. At a stakeholder meeting on 21-22 Februray 2002 which discussed the strategy to be adopted for the review a representative from Sweden stated that one of the industrial substances tetra- brominated diphenylether (tetra BDE) was a component of Penta BDE which was in the process of being banned. Therefore, in the interests of efficiency, resources were not assigned to a review of tetra BDE 2. Approach adopted Within the European Commission Strategy for Endocrine Disrupters this report, and the evaluation framework that has been developed, is designed to represent a stage between the identification of potential substances of concern (in a prioritisation) and any potential action following input of these substances into policy discussions. The evaluation framework has been developed to review the nature and extent of endocrine disrupting effects of identified chemicals (and potentially others in the future) and is based on robust datasets. The derived framework is criteria-based (where possible) so that decisions are made in an objective rather than a subjective manner. However, expert judgement is required at each stage and it is important to record the basis of decisions to aid transparency. It also needs to be recognised that the framework does not involve carrying out a full Risk Assessment of a substance under the Existing Substances Regulation 793/93, but it is appropriate to use established procedures from the Technical Guidance Document (EC 1994) where these are relevant. The WRc-NSF - November 2002 5 European Commission adoption of this approach is designed to maximise consistency in terms of terminology used and the procedures adopted (for example in the areas of data relevance and study validity). The developed evaluation framework considers a number of issues most importantly: 1. Does the available data indicate there is evidence that a chemical causes endocrine disrupting effects in target groups of humans and/or wildlife? 2. Do endocrine disrupting effects of the chemical in target groups of humans and/or wildlife occur at lower concentrations than those causing effects on general systemic toxicological endpoints? 3. Are particular target groups of workers, consumers or wildlife organisms in the environment likely to be exposed to concentrations of chemicals which exceed effects thresholds due to current emission patterns. In the review the International Programme for Chemical Safety (IPCS) definition of an endocrine disrupter has been adopted, namely that it is “an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, or its progeny, or (sub)populations”. As a result the review considers other mechanisms of action than oestrogenicity and anti-oestrogenicity including androgenicity and anti-androgenicity, effects on thyroid function and effects on hormone secretion and synthesis and steroidogenesis, where relevant data are available. In the context of the review it is recognised that there are various laboratory-based in vivo and in vitro methods utilising a range of (eco)toxicological endpoints that are claimed by different sources to be relevant to the assessment of endocrine disruption in humans and/or wildlife. However, since this field is still in an early stage of development there is uncertainty regarding the significance of many of the current findings. From the numerous recent reviews of potential test methods (such as the Detailed Review Paper prepared by OECD in 1997) there is a clear consensus in terms of the hierarchy of the relevance of test methods. In this hierarchy longer-term in vivo studies considering effects on reproduction and/or development (and including mechanistic information) are of greater relevance than short-term in vivo screening tests which are of greater relevance than in vitro assays. The greater relevance of chronic in vivo tests or those assessing effects during critical windows of sensitivity is also evidenced by the fact that these are the key (eco)toxicological methods being developed in the OECD Endocrine Disruption Testing and Assessment (EDTA) Programme. This hierarchy approach to data relevance has been adopted in the review along with a weight of evidence consideration of the available data. For consideration of the risk of a substance to target groups of humans and/or wildlife a Margin of Safety (MOS) approach has been adopted. The MOS (for consumer use) is calculated by dividing the lowest No Observable Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of a compound by its Systemic Exposure Dose (SED) during normal use. If the MOS exceeds 100, the substance is regarded as safe for use. The value of 100 can be modified to account for perceived sensitive target groups (for example children). This approach is based on that given in the Scientific Committee for Consumer Products and Non-Food Products intended for Consumers (SCCNFP) “Notes of Guidance for Testing of Cosmetic Ingredients for their Safety Evaluation” (SCCNFP/0321/00 Final, 2001). A similar approach is applied to workers and also to wildlife groups using appropriate exposure and effects data. It should be recognised that this approach does not provide a as robust a measure of potential risk as a PEC/PNEC WRc-NSF - November 2002 6 European Commission comparison but that it is designed to highlight situations where further effort may be needed to clarify the nature and extent of exposure to a target group. 3. Outcome of the reviews In considering the data on the potential endocrine disrupting effects of individual natural and synthetic substances on target groups of humans and/or wildlife it needs to be recognised that a vast majority of the available data is from studies conducted using current internationally recognised test guidelines or studies carried out using alternative (possibly non-regulatory) procedures. As such the studies may provide information on potential adverse effects on reproduction and development in the species studied but, because they are not specifically designed to address endocrine disruption, do not usually provide data on changes in endocrine function (for example changes in hormone levels). In the assessment of endocrine disruption in humans and wildlife the question of ‘proof’ of adverse effects and of underlying causative factors is crucial both for scientific inference and for guiding opinion forming and decision making. For the industrial substances and natural/synthetic steroids the datasets for assessing potential endocrine disrupting effects in target groups of humans and/or wildlife vary in terms of both the types of studies for which data is available and their reliability (i.e. the methods used and the quality assurance/quality control procedures adopted). This is illustrated in Table ES1 which summarises