R. T. Zoeller

EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

The Endocrine Societys first Scientific Statement in 2009 provided a wake-up call to the scientific community about how environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) affect health and disease. Five years later, a substantially larger body of literature has solidified our understanding of plausible mechanisms underlying EDC actions and how exposures in animals and humans-especially during development-may lay the foundations for disease later in life. At this point in history, we have much stronger knowledge about how EDCs alter gene-environment interactions via physiological, cellular, molecular, and epigenetic changes, thereby producing effects in exposed individuals as well as their descendants. Causal links between exposure and manifestation of disease are substantiated by experimental animal models and are consistent with correlative epidemiological data in humans. There are several caveats because differences in how experimental animal work is conducted can lead to difficulties in drawing broad conclusions, and we must continue to be cautious about inferring causality in humans. In this second Scientific Statement, we reviewed the literature on a subset of topics for which the translational evidence is strongest: 1) obesity and diabetes; 2) female reproduction; 3) male reproduction; 4) hormone-sensitive cancers in females; 5) prostate; 6) thyroid; and 7) neurodevelopment and neuroendocrine systems. Our inclusion criteria for studies were those conducted predominantly in the past 5 years deemed to be of high quality based on appropriate negative and positive control groups or populations, adequate sample size and experimental design, and mammalian animal studies with exposure levels in a range that was relevant to humans. We also focused on studies using the developmental origins of health and disease model. No report was excluded based on a positive or negative effect of the EDC exposure. The bulk of the results across the board strengthen the evidence for endocrine health-related actions of EDCs. Based on this much more complete understanding of the endocrine principles by which EDCs act, including nonmonotonic dose-responses, low-dose effects, and developmental vulnerability, these findings can be much better translated to human health. Armed with this information, researchers, physicians, and other healthcare providers can guide regulators and policymakers as they make responsible decisions.

Executive Summary to EDC-2: The Endocrine Society's Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals

This Executive Summary to the Endocrine Societys second Scientific Statement on environmental endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) provides a synthesis of the key points of the complete statement. The full Scientific Statement represents a comprehensive review of the literature on seven topics for which there is strong mechanistic, experimental, animal, and epidemiological evidence for endocrine disruption, namely: obesity and diabetes, female reproduction, male reproduction, hormone-sensitive cancers in females, prostate cancer, thyroid, and neurodevelopment and neuroendocrine systems. EDCs such as bisphenol A, phthalates, pesticides, persistent organic pollutants such as polychlorinated biphenyls, polybrominated diethyl ethers, and dioxins were emphasized because these chemicals had the greatest depth and breadth of available information. The Statement also included thorough coverage of studies of developmental exposures to EDCs, especially in the fetus and infant, because these are critical life stages during which perturbations of hormones can increase the probability of a disease or dysfunction later in life. A conclusion of the Statement is that publications over the past 5 years have led to a much fuller understanding of the endocrine principles by which EDCs act, including nonmonotonic dose-responses, low-dose effects, and developmental vulnerability. These findings will prove useful to researchers, physicians, and other healthcare providers in translating the science of endocrine disruption to improved public health.

Flawed Experimental Design Reveals the Need for Guidelines Requiring Appropriate Positive Controls in Endocrine Disruption Research

Frederick S. vom Saal,* Benson T. Akingbemi,† Scott M. Belcher,‡ David A. Crain,§ David Crews,{ Linda C. Guidice,jj Patricia A. Hunt,jjj Csaba Leranth,jjjj John Peterson Myers,# Angel Nadal,** Nicholas Olea,†† Vasantha Padmanabhan, Cheryl S. Rosenfeld, Alan Schneyer, Gilbert Schoenfelder, Carlos Sonnenschein, Ana M. Soto, Richard W. Stahlhut, Shanna H. Swan, Laura N. Vandenberg, Hong-Sheng Wang, Cheryl S. Watson, Wade V. Welshons, and Robert T. Zoeller

The nature of the compensatory response to low thyroid hormone in the developing brain

Thyroid hormone is essential for normal brain development, although the degree to which the developing brain is sensitive to small perturbations in serum thyroxin is not clear. An important concept related to this is that the developing brain possesses potent mechanisms to compensate for low serum thyroid hormone, and this concept is routinely employed in discussions concerning clinical treatments or public health. However, experimental studies have not directly tested whether (or the degree to which) putative compensatory mechanisms can ameliorate the consequences of small reductions in serum thyroxin (T4). To formally test this concept, we employed a model of graded T4 reductions using doses of propylthiouracil (PTU) that were 200‐ to 67‐fold lower than the dose traditionally used to produce hypothyroidism in rats. PTU produced a stepwise decrease in serum total T4, and a stepwise increase in serum thyroid‐stimulating hormone (TSH), in type 2 deiodinase mRNA expression and enzyme activity in the brain, and in the expression of the mRNA encoding the tri‐iodothyronine (T3) transporter MCT8 in the postnatal day (P) 15  cortex. However, the mRNA encoding RC3/neurogranin, a direct target of T3 action, exhibited a strong negative linear correlation with serum total T4 despite these adaptive responses. In addition, single‐cell analysis of RC3 mRNA levels in cortical neurones demonstrated that the co‐expression of MCT8 did not alter the relationship between RC3 mRNA and serum T4. These findings do not support the currently envisioned concept of the developing brain being capable of compensating for low T4.

Assessing dose–response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity

The fundamental principle in regulatory toxicology is that all chemicals are toxic and that the severity of effect is proportional to the exposure level. An ancillary assumption is that there are no effects at exposures below the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL), either because no effects exist or because they are not statistically resolvable, implying that they would not be adverse. Chemicals that interfere with hormones violate these principles in two important ways: dose–response relationships can be non-monotonic, which have been reported in hundreds of studies of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs); and effects are often observed below the LOAEL, including all environmental epidemiological studies examining EDCs. In recognition of the importance of this issue, Lagarde et al. have published the first proposal to qualitatively assess non-monotonic dose response (NMDR) relationships for use in risk assessments. Their proposal represents a significant step forward in the evaluation of complex datasets for use in risk assessments. Here, we comment on three elements of the Lagarde proposal that we feel need to be assessed more critically and present our arguments: 1) the use of Klimisch scores to evaluate study quality, 2) the concept of evaluating study quality without topical experts’ knowledge and opinions, and 3) the requirement of establishing the biological plausibility of an NMDR before consideration for use in risk assessment. We present evidence-based logical arguments that 1) the use of the Klimisch score should be abandoned for assessing study quality; 2) evaluating study quality requires experts in the specific field; and 3) an understanding of mechanisms should not be required to accept observable, statistically valid phenomena. It is our hope to contribute to the important and ongoing debate about the impact of NMDRs on risk assessment with positive suggestions.

Burden of disease and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the European Union: an updated analysis.

A previous report documented that endocrine disrupting chemicals contribute substantially to certain forms of disease and disability. In the present analysis, our main objective was to update a range of health and economic costs that can be reasonably attributed to endocrine disrupting chemical exposures in the European Union, leveraging new burden and disease cost estimates of female reproductive conditions from accompanying report. Expert panels evaluated the epidemiologic evidence, using adapted criteria from the WHO Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group, and evaluated laboratory and animal evidence of endocrine disruption using definitions recently promulgated by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. The Delphi method was used to make decisions on the strength of the data. Expert panels consensus was achieved for probable (>20%) endocrine disrupting chemical causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability; autism; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; endometriosis; fibroids; childhood obesity; adult obesity; adult diabetes; cryptorchidism; male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced testosterone. Accounting for probability of causation, and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median annual cost of €163 billion (1.28% of EU Gross Domestic Product) across 1000 simulations. We conclude that endocrine disrupting chemical exposures in the EU are likely to contribute substantially to disease and dysfunction across the life course with costs in the hundreds of billions of Euros per year. These estimates represent only those endocrine disrupting chemicals with the highest probability of causation; a broader analysis would have produced greater estimates of burden of disease and costs.

Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than ‘sound science’, should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals

Evidence increasingly confirms that synthetic chemicals disrupt the endocrine system and contribute to disease and disability across the lifespan. Despite a United Nations Environment Programme/WHO report affirmed by over 100 countries at the Fourth International Conference on Chemicals Management, ‘manufactured doubt’ continues to be cast as a cloud over rigorous, peer-reviewed and independently funded scientific data. This study describes the sources of doubt and their social costs, and suggested courses of action by policymakers to prevent disease and disability. The problem is largely based on the available data, which are all too limited. Rigorous testing programmes should not simply focus on oestrogen, androgen and thyroid. Tests should have proper statistical power. ‘Good laboratory practice’ (GLP) hardly represents a proper or even gold standard for laboratory studies of endocrine disruption. Studies should be evaluated with regard to the contamination of negative controls, responsiveness to positive controls and dissection techniques. Flaws in many GLP studies have been identified, yet regulatory agencies rely on these flawed studies. Peer-reviewed and unbiased research, rather than ‘sound science’, should be used to evaluate endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

Burden of disease and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the European Union: an updated analysis

A previous report documented that endocrine disrupting chemicals contribute substantially to certain forms of disease and disability. In the present analysis, our main objective was to update a range of health and economic costs that can be reasonably attributed to endocrine disrupting chemical exposures in the European Union, leveraging new burden and disease cost estimates of female reproductive conditions from accompanying report. Expert panels evaluated the epidemiologic evidence, using adapted criteria from the WHO Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group, and evaluated laboratory and animal evidence of endocrine disruption using definitions recently promulgated by the Danish Environmental Protection Agency. The Delphi method was used to make decisions on the strength of the data. Expert panels consensus was achieved for probable (>20%) endocrine disrupting chemical causation for IQ loss and associated intellectual disability; autism; attention deficit hyperactivity disorder; endometriosis; fibroids; childhood obesity; adult obesity; adult diabetes; cryptorchidism; male infertility, and mortality associated with reduced testosterone. Accounting for probability of causation, and using the midpoint of each range for probability of causation, Monte Carlo simulations produced a median annual cost of €163 billion (1.28% of EU Gross Domestic Product) across 1000 simulations. We conclude that endocrine disrupting chemical exposures in the EU are likely to contribute substantially to disease and dysfunction across the life course with costs in the hundreds of billions of Euros per year. These estimates represent only those endocrine disrupting chemicals with the highest probability of causation; a broader analysis would have produced greater estimates of burden of disease and costs.