German Centre for Protection for the Protection Laboratory Animals, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, and Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, cooperate member of Freie Universtität, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Prof. Dr. Gilbert Schönfelder
German Centre for Protection for the Protection Laboratory Animals, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, and Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Universitätsmedizin Berlin, cooperate member of Freie Universtität, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117 Berlin, Germany
BackgroundIn their safety evaluations of bisphenol A (BPA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and a counterpart in Europe, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), have given special prominence to two industry-funded studies that adhered to standards defined by Good Laboratory Practices (GLP). These same agencies have given much less weight in risk assessments to a large number of independently replicated non-GLP studies conducted with government funding by the leading experts in various fields of science from around the world.ObjectivesWe reviewed differences between industry-funded GLP studies of BPA conducted by commercial laboratories for regulatory purposes and non-GLP studies conducted in academic and government laboratories to identify hazards and molecular mechanisms mediating adverse effects. We examined the methods and results in the GLP studies that were pivotal in the draft decision of the U.S. FDA declaring BPA safe in relation to findings from studies that were competitive for U....
Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the highest-volume chemicals produced worldwide, and human exposure to BPA is thought to be ubiquitous. Thus, there are concerns that the amount of BPA to which humans are exposed may cause adverse health effects. We examined many possibilities for why biomonitoring and toxicokinetic studies could come to seemingly conflicting conclusions. More than 80 published human biomonitoring studies that measured BPA concentrations in human tissues, urine, blood, and other fluids, along with two toxicokinetic studies of human BPA metabolism were examined. Unconjugated BPA was routinely detected in blood (in the nanograms per milliliter range), and conjugated BPA was routinely detected in the vast majority of urine samples (also in the nanograms per milliliter range). In stark contrast, toxicokinetic studies proposed that humans are not internally exposed to BPA. Available data from biomonitoring studies clearly indicate that the general population is exposed to BPA and is at risk from internal exposure to unconjugated BPA. The two toxicokinetic studies that suggested human BPA exposure is negligible have significant deficiencies, are directly contradicted by hypothesis-driven studies, and are therefore not reliable for risk assessment purposes.
A workshop was held in Berlin September 12-14th 2012 to assess the state of the science of the data supporting low dose effects and non-monotonic dose responses ("low dose hypothesis") for chemicals with endocrine activity (endocrine disrupting chemicals or EDCs). This workshop consisted of lectures to present the current state of the science of EDC action and also the risk assessment process. These lectures were followed by breakout sessions to integrate scientists from various backgrounds to discuss in an open and unbiased manner the data supporting the "low dose hypothesis". While no consensus was reached the robust discussions were helpful to inform both basic scientists and risk assessors on all the issues. There were a number of important ideas developed to help continue the discussion and improve communication over the next few years.
1 August 2010 in Environmental Health Perspectives