Suchergebnisse

This publication summarizes discussions that were held during an international expert hearing organized by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany, in October 2017. The expert hearing was dedicated to providing practical guidance for the measurement of circulating hormones in regulatory toxicology studies. Adequate measurements of circulating hormones have become more important given the regulatory requirement to assess the potential for endocrine disrupting properties for all substances covered by the plant protection products and biocidal products regulations in the European Union (EU). The main focus was the hypothalamus–pituitary–thyroid axis (HPT) and the hypothalamus–pituitary–gonadal axis (HPG). Insulin, insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1), parathyroid hormone (PTH) and vitamins A and D were also discussed. During the hearing, the experts agreed on specific recommendations for design, conduct and evaluation of acceptability of studies measuring thyroid hormones, thyroid stimulating hormone and reproductive hormones as well as provided some recommendations for insulin and IGF-1. Experts concluded that hormonal measurements as part of the test guidelines (TGs) of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) were necessary on the condition that quality criteria to guarantee reliability and reproducibility of measurements are adhered to. Inclusion of the female reproductive hormones in OECD TGs was not recommended unless the design of the study was modified to appropriately measure hormone concentrations. The current report aims at promoting standardization of the experimental designs of hormonal assays to allow their integration in OECD TGs and highlights research needs for better identification of endocrine disruptors using hormone measurements.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11–12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose–response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11-12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose-response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Endocrine disruption is a specific form of toxicity, where natural and/or anthropogenic chemicals, known as "endocrine disruptors" (EDs), trigger adverse health effects by disrupting the endogenous hormone system. There is need to harmonize guidance on the regulation of EDs, but this has been hampered by what appeared as a lack of consensus among scientists. This publication provides summary information about a consensus reached by a group of world-leading scientists that can serve as the basis for the development of ED criteria in relevant EU legislation. Twenty-three international scientists from different disciplines discussed principles and open questions on ED identification as outlined in a draft consensus paper at an expert meeting hosted by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin, Germany on 11–12 April 2016. Participants reached a consensus regarding scientific principles for the identification of EDs. The paper discusses the consensus reached on background, definition of an ED and related concepts, sources of uncertainty, scientific principles important for ED identification, and research needs. It highlights the difficulty in retrospectively reconstructing ED exposure, insufficient range of validated test systems for EDs, and some issues impacting on the evaluation of the risk from EDs, such as non-monotonic dose–response and thresholds, modes of action, and exposure assessment. This report provides the consensus statement on EDs agreed among all participating scientists. The meeting facilitated a productive debate and reduced a number of differences in views. It is expected that the consensus reached will serve as an important basis for the development of regulatory ED criteria.

Abstract New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), broadly understood to include in silico, in chemico, in vitro and ex vivo methods, show great potential in advancing risk assessment albeit their regulatory implementation is lagging. The EFSA Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials (EFSA Guidance on Nano‐RA) suggests nano‐specific risk assessment is best achieved through Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATAs) with NAMs as the first choice to generate new information. Integrating NAMs in risk assessment promises several advantages such as a better human focus, more detailed insights into molecular mechanisms and a higher efficacy. However, applying NAMs to NMs also poses considerable challenges such as issues related to dispersion stability, dosimetry, agglomeration, dissolution, transformations or assay interferences. Significant efforts are being undertaken by standardisation organisations and research projects to establish various NAMs for NMs. Here a thorough review is provided covering NAMs that will be potentially useful for risk assessment of NMs in the food and feed sector. It follows the structure of the EFSA Guidance on Nano‐RA and expands it, where needed, to support decision‐making in selection of NAMs for NM risk assessment. The review begins with an overview on nano‐specific NAM‐frameworks, followed by a description of individual NAMs including those relevant to NM physicochemical characterisation, exposure and hazard assessment covering toxicodynamics and toxicokinetics. The focus is on NAMs concerning NM degradation/dissolution, genotoxicity, cytotoxicity, oxidative stress, (pro‐)inflammation, and barrier integrity as those are important endpoints for initial screening according to the EFSA framework. As a result, in total 267 individual nano‐relevant NAMs, mostly "not validated" (with a few notable exceptions), were included in this review. Validation notwithstanding, NAMs could already prove relevant and reliable for risk assessment of NMs, especially in integrated approaches.