Assessment of three approaches for regulatory decision making on pesticides with endocrine disrupting properties

• Published in: Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology Vol. 70; no. 3; pp. 590 - 604
• Main Authors: Marx-Stoelting, P., Niemann, L., Ritz, V., Ulbrich, B., Gall, A., Hirsch-Ernst, K.I., Pfeil, R., Solecki, R.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier Inc 01-12-2014
• Subjects: Animals; Decision criteria; Decision Making; Endocrine Disruption; Endocrine Disruptors - classification; Endocrine Disruptors - toxicity; European Union; Government Regulation; Humans; Pesticides; Pesticides - classification; Pesticides - toxicity; Risk Assessment - classification; Risk Assessment - legislation & jurisprudence; Risk Assessment - methods; ANE, Europe; CLP; MRL; Endocrine Disruption; Pesticides; ANSES; HPT; ECETOC; BfR; EFSA; REACH; GHS; CRD; IPCS; Reg; Decision criteria; EPA; ESIS; HPA; EC; HPG; ED; WHO
• ISSN: 0273-2300; 1096-0295
• DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2014.09.001

•3 options for decision making on ED properties were tested upon 39 pesticides.•Use of criteria for hazard identification and characterisation allows prioritisation.•Endpoints affected by endocrine disruption in toxicity studies were analysed.
Recent EU legislation has introduced endocrine disrupting properties as a hazard-based “cut-off” criterion for the approval of active substances as pesticides and biocides. Currently, no specific science-based approach for the assessment of substances with endocrine disrupting properties has been agreed upon, although this new legislation provides interim criteria based on classification and labelling.
Different proposals for decision making on potential endocrine disrupting properties in human health risk assessment have been developed by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) and other regulatory bodies. All these frameworks, although differing with regard to hazard characterisation, include a toxicological assessment of adversity of the effects, the evaluation of underlying modes/mechanisms of action in animals and considerations concerning the relevance of effects to humans.
Three options for regulatory decision making were tested upon 39 pesticides for their applicability and to analyze their potential impact on the regulatory status of active substances that are currently approved for use in Europe: Option 1, based purely on hazard identification (adversity, mode of action, and the plausibility that both are related); Option 2, based on hazard identification and additional elements of hazard characterisation (severity and potency); Option 3, based on the interim criteria laid down in the recent EU pesticides legislation. Additionally, the data analysed in this study were used to address the questions, which parts of the endocrine system were affected, which studies were the most sensitive and whether no observed adverse effect levels were observed for substance with ED properties.
The results of this exercise represent preliminary categorisations and must not be used as a basis for definitive regulatory decisions. They demonstrate that a combination of criteria for hazard identification with additional criteria of hazard characterisation allows prioritising and differentiating between substances with regard to their regulatory concern. It is proposed to integrate these elements into a decision matrix to be used within a weight of evidence approach for the toxicological categorisation of relevant endocrine disruptors and to consider all parts of the endocrine system for regulatory decision making on endocrine disruption.