Inventory and evaluation of publicly available sources of information on hazards and risks of industrial chemicals.

Regulatory authorities from developing countries have expressed a need for guidance in locating environmental, health and safety (EHS) information on industrial chemicals. In response, possible sources were identified via a search of the Internet using relevant terms and by soliciting suggestions from more than 200 knowledgeable stakeholders. This initially identified greater than 100 databases, 41 of which were chosen for further profiling and analysis based on their size and comprehensiveness. They were divided for analysis into three distinct groups: (1) data portals that provide information seekers with an efficient simultaneous search of multiple, third-party owned and maintained databases; (2) primary EHS information sources; and (3) databases that provide only EHS-type regulatory decisions but not raw data. Descriptive evaluations of each database were performed, including: (1) scope; (2) ease of access and use; (3) breadth and depth of EHS information available; (4) quality of the underlying information; and (5) procedures to keep the information current. We conclude that, although there exists EHS information to support screening level hazard and risk assessment for the majority of the highest production volume chemicals, information gaps for lower production volume chemicals persist, and Confidential Business Information claims for some chemicals can limit the information available to the general public. A lack of information on uses and exposures to chemicals, particularly in developing countries is especially challenging. Nevertheless, there are reasons (e.g. advances in regulations, marketplace pressures, and computational toxicology science) to be optimistic that going forward information gaps can be closed at an accelerated rate.

Human cost burden of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. A critical review.

Recently published papers have alleged that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are causing substantial disease burdens in the EU and US and are consequently costing society hundreds of billions of dollars annually. To date, these cost estimates have not undergone adequate scientific scrutiny, but nevertheless are being used aggressively in advocacy campaigns in an attempt to fundamentally change how chemicals are tested, evaluated and regulated. Consequently, we critically evaluated the underlying methodology and assumptions employed by the chief architects of the disease burden cost estimates. Since the vast majority of their assigned disease burden costs are driven by the assumption that "loss of IQ" and "increased prevalence of intellectual disability" are caused by exposures to organophosphate pesticides (OPPs) and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), we have taken special care in describing and evaluating the underlying toxicology and epidemiology evidence that was relied upon. Unfortunately, our review uncovered substantial flaws in the approach taken and the conclusions that were drawn. Indeed, the authors of these papers assumed causal relationships between putative exposures to EDCs and selected diseases, i.e., "loss of IQ" and "increased prevalence of intellectual disability", despite not having established them via a thorough evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying animal toxicology and human epidemiology evidence. Consequently, the assigned disease burden costs are highly speculative and should not be considered in the weight of evidence approach underlying any serious policy discussions serving to protect the public and regulate chemicals considered as EDCs.