Endocrine disruptors

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As endocrine disruptors (from ancient Greek ἔνδον Endon or Latin endo "inside", ancient Greek κρίνειν krinein "retire" and Latin disrumpere "immobilize", "disturb"), even xenohormones ( ancient Greek ξένος Xenos "foreign"), endocrine disrupters or hormonally active Substances are substances that, if they get into the body, can damage health even in the smallest quantities by changing the endocrine system .

Endocrine disruptors are endocrine disruptors ( EAS , also endocrine disruptors ) with harmful effects. They mainly occur in synthetically manufactured materials (such as pesticides, solvents, baby products, plastic bottles , plastic toys, cosmetic containers, etc.), but can also be of natural origin (e.g. phytoestrogens ). Some endocrine disrupting substances are specifically used in medicine (e.g. birth control pills ).

The endocrinological society Endocrine Society, the European Society of Endocrinology, the European Society for Pediatric Endocrinology, the German Society for Endocrinology and the World Health Organization (WHO) consider it to be proven that endocrine disruptors are involved in the development of breast and prostate cancer, Infertility, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, thyroid disease as well as neurological, neurodegenerative and mental illnesses in humans are involved. These findings have been discussed controversially for several years by the public, representatives of the manufacturing industry and politics.

Experts estimate that of the roughly 85,000 synthetic chemicals, around 1,000 could be endocrine disruptors. However, since these were not fully tested for their safety prior to their approval, there is uncertainty about the exact proportion.

Known or Suspected Endocrine Disruptors and Their Occurrences

Endocrine disruptors are part of many synthetically manufactured products. Materials made of plastic (such as children's toys, plastic bottles, plastic boxes or cosmetic bottles), the linings of tetra packs and cans, electronic items, building materials, cosmetic products, textiles and solvents and lubricants used in industry can be particularly stressed .

Endocrine disruptors are also present in numerous pesticides, including those approved in the EU. Among other things, through the agricultural application of these pesticides to fields, the soil, water and atmosphere are enriched with endocrine disruptors. In turn, they get into the tissue of plants and animals living there. In the summer of 2018, a study was carried out in six EU member states in which various pesticides with endocrine disruptions could be detected in the hair samples of around 60% of the test persons.

In 1993 a list of substances with suspected endocrine disruptive properties was published in the scientific literature for the first time. Theo Colborn , a scientist and co-author of the essay , who was then working at the W. Alton Jones Foundation and the WWF , published a popular science book in 1996 and thus aroused public interest.

According to WHO / UNEP (2013), up to 800 substances are known for which an endocrine effect is either proven or suspected. However, so far only a small proportion of these substances has been subjected to tests that can demonstrate endocrine effects in intact organisms. The vast majority of synthetically produced chemicals have never been tested for hormonal effects. The majority of the compounds banned or restricted from being made under the Stockholm Convention also have endocrine disruptions.

WHO and UNEP (2013) provide an overview of chemical categories of substances with proven or potential endocrine disruptive effects. The substances were identified on the basis of existing reviews and relevant reports. The categories are listed below with examples:

Absorption of endocrine disruptors

The uptake of endocrine disruptors into the human body essentially takes place via:

  • Food and drinking liquids (especially those that have come into contact with pesticides or plastic)
  • Skin contact (e.g. with cosmetics, pesticides, textiles treated with flame retardants, industrially manufactured cleaning agents)
  • Inhalation (e.g. abrasion from plastic parts or rubber tires in urban areas, pesticide aerosols when gardening or working in the fields)

Examples of proven or suspected interference from individual substances

Endocrinological societies and the WHO regard it as proven that endocrine disruptors in humans lead to the development of hormone-sensitive cancers, metabolic diseases such as diabetes mellitus, infertility, neuronal development disorders and many more. contribute. From the perspective of these professional associations, embryos, fetuses and children are particularly at risk. This knowledge is based on a large number of animal experiments and cell culture experiments in the laboratory, as well as observations of wild animal populations and epidemiological studies on humans (such as the rapidly increasing rates of breast and testicular cancer). The most recent review of the health risks posed by endocrine disruptors included over 1,800 scientific studies.

Examples according to WHO / UNEP are listed below:

  • PCB : Adequate evidence of possible endometriosis and fibroids of the uterus in humans, and fibroids, tumors and adrenal problems in seals ; strong experimental and molecular evidence of suppression of thyroid hormones in all vertebrates and epidemiological evidence of impairment of cognitive function in children; Limited evidence for prostate and breast cancer in humans and genital cancer in sea lions; Evidence of immune dysfunction in marine animals and humans; limited evidence of higher risk of diabetes ; likely contributor to the decline in fish-eating birds and mammals.
  • DDT : sufficient evidence of nipple retention , hypospadias , reduced sex organ weight , reduced anogenital distance, delayed preputial separation, abnormally small penises , deficient testicles , lower testosterone levels in men; increased estradiol levels, abnormal shape of the ovaries in women (see steroid receptor ). Possible cause of endometriosis and cycle disruption in humans. Egg shell thinning, feminization, homosexual behavior, and population decline in birds. Lower testosterone levels and demasculinization in polar bears and alligators, intersexuality in fish and frogs. Some evidence of suppression of thyroid hormones in marine animals, birds, and amphibians. Limited evidence of breast cancer, leukemia, and lymphatic cancer in humans. Limited evidence of increased obesity risk with prenatal exposure . Likely to contribute to the decline in fish-eating birds and mammals.
  • PFOS : little-studied evidence of decline in female fertility and change in cycle .
  • PBDE : Limited evidence of previous menarche and abnormal position of the testicle in humans, egg shell thinning, delayed hatching and lower hatching weight in birds. Strong evidence of suppression of thyroid hormones in humans and arctic fauna. Limited evidence of cognitive impairment. Possible contributor to the decline in marine mammals.
  • HBCDD : hardly studied, often appears together with PDBE and PCB in tissues , sometimes associated with similar effects.
  • PFOA : so far hardly studied, very limited evidence of pregnancy problems and obesity in humans.
  • DEHP : numerous negative effects on masculinity, similar to DDT
  • Triclosan : Little-studied evidence of disruption of steroidogenic enzymes that play a role in the production of testosterone and estrogen . According to a few laboratory studies, it could have negative effects on reproductive success in both men and women. Limited epidemiological evidence of an association with hay fever and allergies.
  • Bisphenol A : Acts as an estrogen in all vertebrates. Limited evidence of sexual cycle disorder. Mammary gland more sensitive to tumor development and estradiol . Regulates adipose tissue through estrogen receptors in fat cells . Affects the function of beta cells , increases insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. Limited epidemiological evidence of diabetes and altered liver function in humans. Influence of thyroid hormones and metamorphosis in amphibians. Reduces learning ability in white-footed mice, influence on deminization and hyperactivity.
  • Atrazine : disruption of the sexual cycle in rats, intersexuality in frogs, immunodepression after prenatal exposure in rats, amphibians and fish.
  • Vinclozolin : anti-androgen that lowers testosterone in male rodents, causes hypospadias and testicular dystopia, disrupts nipple development and shrinks the penis. Feminization and loss of sexual interest in rabbits. Masculinization of females. Disturbed sex ratio in experimental studies with fish. Less oviposition and reproduction in birds. Possible carcinogen .
  • Fluoxetine : May affect sex hormones and reproduction as well as the feeding behavior of fish and other aquatic vertebrates. Reduced growth of tadpoles due to reduced feeding behavior. Premature oviposition and non-viable larvae in freshwater molluscs.
  • Levonorgestrel : Hardly investigated, can reduce reproductive success and oviposition of female fish and the sexual interest of male fish.
  • Methylmercury : Well studied. Crosses the blood-brain barrier and lowers the level of enzymes with important functions in reproduction, cognition, growth and development in vertebrates. Increased exposure in fish and amphibians affects reproduction, escape and feeding behavior. Has a negative effect on courtship behavior and partner choice in water birds .

Recommendations for avoiding contact with endocrine disruptors

The Endocrine Society recommends keeping contact with endocrine disruptors to a minimum. It is believed that long-term high exposure poses a higher risk of developing the above diseases.

Since endocrine disruptors can lead to pronounced changes in hormone homeostasis even in the lowest concentrations, the specification of supposedly harmless limit values ​​is problematic according to specialist societies and the WHO.

The Endocrine Society's recommendations for avoiding contact include:

  • Avoiding industrially produced and canned foods
  • Avoidance of storage materials made of plastic (especially those marked with the recycling code 3, 6 and 7). No heating in plastic products (e.g. in the microwave)
  • Avoid using plastic bottles
  • Avoid using plastic toys
  • Use of organic food, as no pesticides may be used in their production
  • Avoid physical exercise in areas with poor air quality
  • Do not buy products that contain endocrine disruptors (phthalates, bisphenol A, parabens)
  • Use cosmetics that do not contain synthetic fragrances
  • Avoid contact with thermal paper, as is often used for receipts or similar.
  • Do not breathe (tobacco) smoke
  • Plant trees to purify the air of endocrine disruptors

Improvement of the knowledge base

Because synthetic chemicals were approved for a long time without adequate safety testing, endocrine disruptors became widespread across the world. This makes it much more difficult to carry out epidemiological studies in humans because it is hardly possible to find a group of test subjects in whose body fluids none of the known endocrine disruptors can be detected.

The WHO / UNEP report makes the following recommendations to improve the knowledge base on endocrine disruptors (ED):

  • Well-known ED are only the "tip of the iceberg". Of the suspected 800–1000 EAS, only a few have so far been examined for their harmful effects. More extensive testing methods are required to identify other potential ED, their sources and routes of exposure. The problem is that the vast majority of commercially available synthetic chemicals have never been tested for safety.
  • So far, research has focused on the negative effects of individual EASs. A significantly higher research effort is required to determine the effects of mixtures of individual endocrine disruptors on humans and animals. Individual studies have already shown that the mixture of EAS can result in reinforcement and synergy effects.
  • Reporting: Many sources of ED are unknown due to insufficient information from the industry regarding substances in products, materials and goods.
  • Cooperation: The increased exchange of data between scientists and states can close data gaps, especially in developing and emerging countries.

An overview article on company risk assessment provides a summary of the findings on endocrine disruptors in occupational safety .

regulation

From the perspective of endocrinological societies, the regulation of endocrine disruptors is progressing too slowly worldwide.

Although scientists have been warning of the dangers of endocrine disruptors for over 25 years, hardly any political measures have been taken that lead to an effective reduction in exposure. This is mainly attributed to the strong influence of the industries producing these chemicals on the legislative process. These would prevent stricter regulation through the same strategies with which the bans or regulation of asbestos and tobacco smoke had already been delayed.

European Union

Legal acts

The Regulation EC 1907/2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) specifies that substances can be identified with endocrine disruptive properties as SVHCs and declared subject to approval.

The Regulation (EC) no. 1107/2009 (pesticide regulation) concerning the placing of plant protection products defines that pesticide active ingredients with endocrine disrupting properties within the EU without authorization may be granted or must be removed from the approval. However, authorization will not be refused if exposure is negligible under the conditions of use or if the substance in question is necessary to control a serious risk to plant health which cannot be controlled by other available means, including non-chemical methods .

According to Regulation (EU) No. 528/2012 (Biocide Regulation) on the making available on the market and the use of biocidal products , these substances are not permitted if they have endocrine disrupting properties. However, approval will not be refused if the risk to humans and the environment is negligible, if the substance is essential for combating serious health risks or if non-approval would lead to disproportionate negative effects for society in relation to the risks to humans and the environment . On September 4, 2017, scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties were published with Regulation (EU) No. 2100/2017. The regulation applies from June 7, 2018.

According to Regulation EC 1223/2009 on cosmetic products , endocrine disruptive substances are currently not subject to any restrictions; However, this will be checked as soon as internationally agreed or EU criteria for the identification of substances with endocrine disrupting properties are available, but no later than January 11, 2015.

The directive on the regulatory framework for water policy (2000/60 / EC) contains a strategy against the pollution of surface water by chemical pollutants and substances of particular concern in the EU, including some potential endocrine disrupting substances. In 2012 the Commission proposed adding to the list of priority substances. Although no direct reference is made, endocrine disruptive properties could represent an important criterion for classifying substances or groups of substances in this category.

EU strategy

Between 1996 and 2000 the EU developed a community strategy for dealing with ED. A list of potential EDs was published in 2000 to help set priorities. Of a total of 564 substances that, according to various organizations or scientific studies, were suspected of having an endocrine disruptive potential, 147 were identified that are either environmentally stable or are produced in large quantities (> 1000 t / year). Endocrine effects in at least one animal species were found for only 66 of these substances (Category 1). For 52 of these substances there was evidence of activity from in-vitro studies (category 2). For the remaining 29 substances, insufficient data were available to prove or disprove endocrine activity (category 3). In a subsequent step, the substances from Category 1 were tested for their human and animal exposure probability; human exposure was therefore likely for 60 of these substances.

As a result, 12 substances, 9 of which are industrial substances with a proven or probable endocrine disruptive effect and 3 natural or synthetic hormones, were prioritized for a more in-depth assessment and examined in a study published in 2002. With regard to possible health hazards, the study found that some industrial substances ( 2,4-dichlorophenol , 4-nitrotoluene , 4- tert- octylphenol ) probably do not come into contact with consumers, or only in extremely small quantities, although the data are still inadequate. For substances that come into contact with consumers ( bisphenol A diglycidyl ether via canned food and chlorocresol and resorcinol via cosmetics used as intended), there is no risk for consumers according to the data available.

The Commission also commissioned a study for the 435 substances with insufficient data according to the previous study, which was published in 2002. 147 substances were assigned to category 1 or 2. 129 of them were already banned or restricted in the EU.

In 2009, the Environment Directorate-General commissioned a study on the identification of ED, which was published in 2012 and, in addition to a conference in June 2012, is intended to serve as the basis for a revision of the EU strategy. By December 2013 the Commission should present proposals for identification criteria for ED under the pesticide and biocide regulations. The authors of the study recommended including validated and internationally recognized test methods in the pesticide and chemical regulations, developing reference documents for the interpretation of the test results, defining endocrine disruptors as a separate regulatory class, developing evidence-based methods for the simultaneous consideration of harmfulness and mode of action, the potency only to consider in addition to other criteria and no longer the only decisive regulatory criterion, and to develop regulatory criteria that promote the generation of data and test methods that go beyond the OECD framework.

In March 2013, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a scientific assessment of the risk assessment of endocrine disruptors at the request of the EU Commission. The EFSA experts concluded that the effects of chemicals on the main endocrine pathways in mammals and fish can be identified using the internationally agreed test methods currently or soon available. The hormonal pathways for which the test methods are best suited include estrogens, androgens, and thyroid hormones, as well as steroidogenesis . EFSA also concluded that a risk assessment approach that takes into account both potential adverse effects from endocrine disruptors and the likelihood of exposure is the best possible use of the information available to regulate the use of the substances concerned. Whether an endocrine disruptor poses a hazard (i.e., whether it can be considered a potential endocrine disruptor) is related to its inherent ability to disrupt the endocrine system and, as a result, cause impairment. A hazard is a potential threat related to a substance's intrinsic properties (such as when its toxicity has been shown to cause cancer). The risk that the endocrine disruptor could have a harmful effect on humans and animals depends on the degree (dose), duration and time of exposure of humans or animals to this hazard. Hazards can be harmless if one is not exposed to them or if the exposure is too low to cause harm. The aim of the risk assessment is to assess how likely it is that a substance - in this case an endocrine disruptor - will cause harm given a given or expected exposure and what would constitute a safe exposure.

A group of experts convened in 2011 and supported by the Joint Research Center published a report in April 2013 to advise the EU Commission on the identification of ED. According to the report, this identification should be based on evidence of endocrine activity and evidence of an adverse effect caused by that activity. Existing test methods are inadequate and should be further developed.

In July 2013, the editors of a number of high-ranking pharmacological and toxicological journals accused the EU Commission, which is currently revising the legal framework for endocrine disrupting substances, of a scientifically questionable approach (Dietrich et al., 2013). Among other things, the editors criticized the Commission's draft for providing for regulation even if endocrine effects were identified in experimental systems that are not directly relevant to humans. In addition, the proposal rejects the consideration of threshold values, which is not scientifically justified and also ignores the EFSA's assessment. Dozens of scientists raised similar concerns in an open letter to Anne Glover in June 2013. In contrast, in May 2013, 89 scientists called for more stringent regulation of EAS by the EU. They are against the currently valid regulation that defines threshold values, since endocrine disruptors in any concentration would have harmful effects. The editors of several endocrinological and environmental science journals made similar statements in August and September 2013, and threw Dietrich et al. (2013) suggest disregarding important scientific findings.

In June 2014, the European Commission published a roadmap for assessing the impact of defining certain criteria to identify ED. The roadmap contains several policy options with different identification criteria and provides for two studies: A first study, in which a method developed by the Joint Research Center is to be applied to a total of 700 chemicals in order to create lists of chemicals identified as ED under the various policy options. The study is expected to be completed in early 2016. Building on this, a second study (from autumn 2015) will assess the consequences for health, the environment, trade, agriculture and the economy of the various policy options. In June 2015, the results of a public consultation on the impact assessment carried out between September 2014 and January 2015 were published and received over 27,000 responses.

A study published in October 2014 on behalf of the Agricultural Industries Confederation (AIC), the Crop Protection Association (CPA) and the National Farmers Union (NFU) estimated the effects of a possible loss of crop protection products through the EU strategy on the UK's land and agriculture Agricultural economics. The study puts the possible yield losses at 4–50% for different crops. These yield losses would result in higher food imports, cost billions in economic damage and cost several thousand jobs.

A study published in 2015 puts the health costs of endocrine disruptors in the EU at around 157 billion euros per year. The estimated costs were almost exclusively caused by a reduction in the intelligence quotient and by intellectual disabilities due to the prenatal effects of agricultural chemicals based on phosphoric acid esters .

On June 15, 2016, the EU Commission presented its drafts for the criteria for the assessment of endocrine disruptors in the areas of biocide and plant protection product approval as well as the impact assessment of the policy options. According to the impact assessment, 26 active substances will be affected (13 herbicides, 9 fungicides and 4 insecticides), which, based on the criteria presented, can no longer be granted authorization. EU production of several agricultural products (e.g. cereals, fruits and vegetables, nuts and wine) would be affected; also several imported products (e.g. wine, bananas, nuts, citrus fruits and animal feed) from third countries (due to residues of unauthorized substances). Five biocidal substances would be affected. On September 4, 2017, scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties of biocides were published with Regulation (EU) No. 2100/2017. The regulation has been in force since June 7, 2018.

United States

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set up the Endocrine Disruption Screening Program (EDSP) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in the late 1990s . In a two-stage system, substances with endocrine disruptive potential and then specific effects caused by a substance as well as the necessary dose are to be identified. In 2009 and 2013, the EPA published lists of a total of 176 substances to be tested for possible endocrine disruptive potential (the lists should not be viewed as lists of known or likely disruptors).

France

Environment Minister Ségolène Royal took an initiative on February 12, 2016 to critically examine endocrine disruptors. She sees an urgent need for action by the European Union in order to limit human exposure and reduce the risks. In their opinion, an EU catalog of criteria should be drawn up in 2016. Following on from the World Health Organization , WHO, it suggests three hazard categories for this, depending on how safe a hazard is. Royal points out that the European Court of Justice long ago obliged the European Commission to draw up a list of criteria for EDs by the end of December 2013. Nothing happened. At the EU Council of Environment Ministers , the responsible Commissioner Andriukaitis promised to have the criteria established by summer 2016, based on the WHO criteria.

France itself adopted a national strategy in 2014 to deal with endocrine disruptors, which are seen as the main problem in pesticide mixtures ( glyphosate , Roundup ). According to Royal, the country now wants to pull out all the stops to avert danger, including legal regulations and public education. A conference on endocrine disruptors in Paris in January 2016 gave the starting signal for the second international scientific colloquium on the national program for research on endocrine disruptors.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. Robert Sattelberger: Hormonally effective substances in the aquatic environment - Analytical results and overview Austrian Federal Environment Agency, Monographs Volume 161, Vienna, 2002.
  2. Questions and answers on endocrine disruptors (PDF; 48 kB). FAQ of the BfR from April 19, 2010. Accessed on November 15, 2013.
  3. a b c d e f g h i j k WHO / UNEP: State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals - 2012 . 2013, ISBN 978-92-4150503-1 (English, who.int [PDF; 11.4 MB ; accessed on November 4, 2018]).
  4. a b c d e f g A. C. Gore, VA Chappell, SE Fenton, JA Flaws, A. Nadal: EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals . In: Endocrine Reviews . tape 36 , no. 6 , December 2015, p. E1 – E150 , doi : 10.1210 / er.2015-1010 , PMID 26544531 , PMC 4702494 (free full text).
  5. a b c Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs) | Hormone Health Network. Accessed November 4, 2018 .
  6. a b c d e f g h EFSA: Endocrine Disruptors . March 20, 2013.
  7. a b Endocrine experts united in disappointment with European Commission's proposed criteria on EDCs | Endocrine Society. Accessed November 4, 2018 .
  8. Stricter regulations needed to protect against harmful environmental hormones - www.endokrinologie.net. Retrieved November 4, 2018 .
  9. a b c d What Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals Are | Endocrine Society. Accessed November 4, 2018 .
  10. ires: Pesticides found in hair samples . 2018 ( greens-efa.eu [PDF; accessed November 8, 2018]).
  11. ^ Theo Colborn: Developmental effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans . In: Environmental Health Perspectives . tape 101 , no. 5 , 1993, p. 378-384 .
  12. Theo Colborn, Dianne Dumanoski, John Peterson Myers, Al Gore : The endangered future. Are we endangering our fertility and survivability? , Droemer Knaur, 1996, ISBN 978-3426268643 .
  13. Endocrine Disruptors. Accessed November 4, 2018 .
  14. Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDCs). Retrieved November 4, 2018 (UK English).
  15. Bergman, Åke., Heindel, Jerrold J., Jobling, Susan., Kidd, Karen A., Zoeller, R. Thomas .: State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals - 2012: an assessment of the state of the science of endocrine disruptors prepared by a group of experts for the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and WHO . United National Environment Program, Geneva, Switzerland 2013, ISBN 978-92-4150503-1 .
  16. EDCs Myth vs. Fact | Hormone Health Network. Accessed November 4, 2018 .
  17. E. Nies, S. Werner, J. Gerding, U. Eickmann: Endocrine Disruptors - Information for an operational risk assessment. In: Hazardous substances - Cleanliness of the air, 77 (2017) No. 9 September 2017, pp. 351–362 , accessed on July 2, 2018 .
  18. a b Brett Aho: Disrupting regulation: understanding industry engagement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals . In: Science and Public Policy . tape 44 , no. 5 , February 15, 2017, ISSN  0302-3427 , p. 698-706 , doi : 10.1093 / scipol / scx004 ( oup.com [accessed November 4, 2018]).
  19. Barbara Casassus: Hormone disrupting chemicals: slow progress to regulation . In: BMJ . tape 361 , April 30, 2018, ISSN  0959-8138 , p. k1876 , doi : 10.1136 / bmj.k1876 , PMID 29712709 ( bmj.com [accessed November 4, 2018]).
  20. ^ S. Dougan, S. DiNardo: Drosophila wingless generates cell type diversity among engrailed expressing cells . In: Nature . tape 360 , no. 6402 , November 26, 1992, p. 347-350 , doi : 10.1038 / 360347a0 , PMID 1280330 .
  21. a b Official Journal of the EU of November 17, 2017 (PDF) , accessed on November 20, 2017.
  22. a b c European Commission: Which substances are of concern? . Retrieved November 20, 2013.
  23. Kortenkamp et al .: State of the Art of the Assessment of Endocrine Disruptors (PDF; 1.9 MB), 2011.
  24. EFSA Scientific Committee: Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment . In: EFSA Journal . tape 11 , no. 3 , 2013, p. 84 , doi : 10.2903 / j.efsa.2013.3132 .
  25. European Commission: New report outlines key scientific elements for identifying endocrine disrupters . April 2, 2013, accessed November 20, 2013.
  26. a b Dietrich et al .: Editorial . Food and Chemical Toxicology , July 5, 2013, doi : 10.1016 / j.fct.2013.07.005 .
  27. 89 scientists join call for EU action on hormone-disrupting chemicals . May 24, 2013. Retrieved November 15, 2013.
  28. Andrea C. Gore: Editorial: An International Riposte to Naysayers of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals . In: Endocrinology . tape 154 , no. 11 , 2013, p. 3955-3956 , doi : 10.1210 / en.2013-1853 .
  29. Bergman et al .: Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a “common sense” intervention by toxicology journal editors . In: Environmental Health . tape 12 , 2013, p. 69-72 , doi : 10.1186 / 1476-069X-12-69 .
  30. Endocrine Disruptors: Impact assessment . European Commission 2015.
  31. Public Consultation on defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the plant protection product regulation and the biocidal products regulation. European Commission 2015.
  32. The effect of the loss of plant protection products on UK agriculture and horticulture and the wider economy ( Memento of the original dated November 9, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . The Andersons Center, October 21, 2014.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.cropprotection.org.uk
  33. Leonardo Trasande, R. Thomas Zoeller, Ulla Hass, Andreas Kortenkamp, ​​Philippe Grandjean, John Peterson Myers, Joseph DiGangi, Martine Bellanger, Russ Hauser, Juliette Legler, Niels E. Skakkebaek, Jerrold J. Heindel: Estimating Burden and Disease Costs of Exposure to Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals in the European Union. In: The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism . 2015, doi : 10.1210 / jc.2014-4324 .
  34. Setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties pursuant to Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 .
  35. Setting out scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties and amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) 1107/2009 .
  36. The impact assessment compared the effects of four possible definitions of endocrine disruptors (options 1, 2, 3, 4) and three possible regulatory implementation processes (options A, B, C) as part of a Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA). The evaluated criteria of the MCA are effectiveness and coherence, competitiveness of agriculture, competitiveness of the pesticide and biocide industry, international trade, human health, environment. As option 1, a continuation of the interim criteria contained in the biocide and plant protection product ordinances (suspected carcinogenic or reproductive toxicity) was determined; Options 2-4 include adopting the WHO / IPCS definition (option 3 also provides for the creation of categories based on the strength of evidence of compliance with the WHO / IPCS criteria, option 4 also for potency in the classification). A continuation of the regulations set out in the biocide and pesticide ordinances (hazard-based approach in the pesticide ordinance, risk-based approach with consideration of socio-economic aspects in the biocide ordinance) was defined as option A. Option B provides for a more risk-based approach to the Plant Protection Ordinance, Option C an adaptation of the Plant Protection Ordinance to the risk-based approach, taking into account socio-economic aspects as in the Biocide Ordinance. Different policy options lead to different numbers of substances identified as endocrine disruptors. Option 4 in combination with option C performed best in the MCA. However, Options 3 and 4 and C have been discarded or considered difficult to implement for various political, scientific and legal reasons, leaving Options 2 and B (versus 1 and A) the most beneficial. See: Impact Assessment: Defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the plant protection products regulation and biocidal products regulation. June 15, 2016.
  37. Communication from the EU Commission of June 15, 2016 on endocrine disruptors and the drafts of the Commission's legal acts defining the scientific criteria for their determination in the context of EU legislation on plant protection products and biocidal products .
  38. Endocrine disruptors explained , ECHA newsletter, May 2018.
  39. EPA: Final List of Initial Pesticide Active Ingredients and Pesticide Inert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (PDF; 154 kB). Retrieved November 18, 2013.
  40. EPA: Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Final Second List of Chemicals and Substances for Tier 1 Screening . Retrieved November 19, 2013.
  41. a b Ségolène Royal rappelle la nécessité que l'Union européenne se mobilise très fortement pour limiter l'exposition des citoyens aux perturbateurs endocriniens ( Memento of the original of March 9, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . Official website of the French government, press release of March 4, 2016.  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr