01 mg/kg as an acceptable exposure to all pesticides was not scie

01 mg/kg as an acceptable exposure to all pesticides was not scientifically based and should be discarded. The final statement of the group was a call for a Workshop on low dose effects with a focus on being open-minded. All stakeholders should participate and study designs should be openly discussed, clarified and validated. Question 2: Is endocrine disruption a mechanism essentially different from other toxicological mechanisms? and Should it therefore be regulated using different criteria? Here there

was no agreement on an answer for either PARP signaling question. The group specified that they could not agree ‘yes’, endocrine disruption is essentially different from other toxicological mechanisms nor could they agree ‘no’, endocrine disruption is not essentially different from other toxicological Selleck Carfilzomib mechanisms. The group suggested that the question may be unanswerable because ‘endocrine disruption’ is too broad of a term. Perhaps a more specific question could address the same or

a similar issue? Regarding the first part of the question, the group suggested that endocrine disruption may be too broad of a term because, unlike e.g., carcinogenesis, there is no clear endpoint for endocrine disruption. In order to have effective regulation, the group stated that there must be clarity and agreement on assay(s) with clear endpoints, i.e., clearly defined and measurable effects of endocrine disruption, this lack was identified as the primary scientific difficulty. It also must be determined if threshold values exist. There was limited agreement in the group regarding different classes of endocrine disrupters based on the associated level of concern. The three level classification scheme suggested by group one was discussed as a possible starting point. The group pointed out that while some endocrine disrupters do have serious Selleck Cobimetinib toxicological consequences, that does not necessarily mean they should be treated differently from other toxins which may also have serious toxicological consequences. The group

did agree that ‘hazard and risk assessment [for endocrine disrupters] should be based on scientific criteria’. Question 3: Are the current testing strategies for endocrine-active pesticides adequate? and Where are the greatest needs for further test development? Here, the group reached consensus on the first part of the question, current testing strategies are considered adequate with only small reservations. However, the group identified several major areas as needing further test development. Current testing strategies include 1) carcinogenicity testing and 2) two generation testing. Carcinogenicity tests are lifetime exposures looking at multiple endpoints. They are generally performed in two species and use three doses separated by a factor of ten. These tests were considered adequate by the group.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>