The European Commission has proposed regulatory criteria on endocrine-disrupting chemicals that are too strict and so fall short of protecting the public, as they were intended to do, experts contend.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals cost Europe billions in health care costs each year (Andrology. 2016 Jul;4[4]:565-72).
Published in June, the criteria would require proof that chemicals harm human endocrine health to define them as endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) – even if data from animal and in vitro studies already suggest so. “Because health effects can take years or even generations to become apparent, this proposal will not protect public health,” the Endocrine Society noted in a sharp formal critique.
Endocrine-disrupting chemicals mimic or block hormones central to brain development, reproduction, metabolism, growth, and other key physiologic processes. The European Union is the largest single economy to regulate EDCs specifically, which more than 1,300 studies have linked to health problems such as infertility, diabetes, obesity, hormone-related cancers, and neurological disorders, the Endocrine Society concluded in a 2015 scientific statement.
Exposure to even low doses of EDCs such as bisphenol A (BPA) can cause adverse effects. But to fulfill the regulatory definition of the European Commission, EDCs would have to meet an even greater burden of proof than carcinogens – a backward step that “defeats the purpose of the regulations – to shield the public from EDCs that pose a threat to human health,” Rémy Slama, PhD, a member of the Society’s European Union Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Task Force, stated in an Endocrine Society news release. Of particular concern is the proposal that EDCs must have a single known “mode of action,” which “represents a fundamental misunderstanding of how endocrine signaling works by connecting different organ systems within the body,” said Dr. Slama, senior investigator at Inserm (the National Institute of Health and Medical Research) in Paris.
Dr. Deborah M. Kurrasch
Deborah M. Kurrasch, PhD, assistant professor and principal investigator at the University of Calgary (Alta.), agreed. The “mode of action” criterion misses the point that EDCs are “messy” compounds that target various proteins and elicit a range of potential cellular responses based on dose, target tissue, and age, she said in an interview. An EDC may lack a single mode of action, or its mode of action may be far harder to pinpoint than its effects on processes such as reproduction, sleep, mood, and growth, she added. “In my opinion, an endocrine-disrupting chemical is one that disrupts the endocrine system. Despite some internal dialogue, the name for this broad and diverse group of chemicals is, and likely will remain, EDCs because the name so accurately describes their one unifying effect – they all perturb normal endocrine function.”
Ultimately, enacting such tight criteria would tie the hands of regulators with regard to newly recognized and even some well-studied EDCs, “despite evidence that they affect endocrine signaling, because their mode of action is not yet known,” Dr. Kurrasch said.
Experts also noted that the EC criteria would keep regulatory bodies from ranking chemicals based on the strength of evidence that they disrupt endocrine function. Instead, the Endocrine Society advocates for a tiered ranking system based on available data. “As the European Parliament and member countries consider whether to implement the European Commission’s criteria, the Society will continue to advocate for criteria that reflect the state of the science,” the organization emphasized.
Dr. Kurrasch is a member of the Endocrine Society and had no other disclosures.