Scientific discrepancies in European regulatory proposals on endocrine disruptors-REACH regulation quo vadis?

The EU chemical strategy for sustainability places a high focus on endocrine-disrupting chemicals (ED), the importance of their identification with increased testing and a ban in consumer products by a generic approach. It is assumed that for ED no threshold and hence no safe dose exists, leading to this generic approach. This view appears to be linked to the claim that for ED 'low-dose non-monotonic dose response' (low-dose NMDR) effects are observed. Without this hypothesis, there are no scientific reasons why classical risk assessment cannot be applied to the ED mode-of-action. Thus, whether for ED low-dose NMDR effects are considered a reproducible scientific fact by European authorities is Gretchen's question in this politicized field. Recent documents by the SCCS, EFSA and ECHA reviewed herein illustrate the diverging views within European scientific bodies on this issue. Furthermore, ED researchers never replicated findings on low-dose NMDR in blinded inter-laboratory experiments and the CLARITY-BPA core studies could not find evidence for reproducible NMDR for BPA. ECHA proposes a battery of in vitro tests to test all chemicals for ED properties. However, these tests were never validated for relevance and their high positivity rate could lead to increased follow-up animal testing. Based on (i) lack of reproducibility data for low-dose NMDR, (ii) diverging views within European authorities on NMDR and (iii) lack of fully validated in vitro test methods it might be premature to fast-track the wide-ranging changes in the regulatory landscape proposed by the authorities ultimately leading to drastically increased animal testing.

Automated summary

The EU chemical strategy prioritizes endocrine-disrupting chemicals, emphasizing increased testing and a ban on their use in consumer products. However, there is diverging views within European scientific bodies on the low-dose non-monotonic dose response effects of these chemicals, potentially leading to increased animal testing.