Bad Reporting or Bad Science? Systematic Data Evaluation as a Means to Improve the Use of Peer-Reviewed Studies in Risk Assessments of Chemicals

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2014, Pages 1427-1445

  Ågerstrand, Marlene ^a   Edvardsson, Linnéa ^a   Rudén, Christina ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

bisphenol A; chemical risk assessment; peer reviewed non standard study; quality evaluation; reliability evaluation; reporting requirements

Indexed keywords

EID: 84898605988     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: 15497860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2013.854139     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Ågerstrand M and Rudén C. 2010. Evaluation of the accuracy and consistency of the Swedish Environmental Classification and Information System for pharmaceuticals. Sci Total Environ 408:2327-39
2. Ågerstrand M, Wester M, and Rudén C. 2009. The Swedish Environmental Classification and Information System for Pharmaceuticals-An empirical investigation of the motivations, intentions and expectations underlying its development and implementation. Environ Internat 35:778-86
3. Ågerstrand M, Küster A, Bachmann J, et al. 2011a. Reporting and evaluation criteria as means towards a transparent use of ecotoxicity data for environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Environ Pollut 159:2487-92
4. Ågerstrand M, Breitholtz M, and Rudén C. 2011b. Comparison of four different methods for reliability evaluation of ecotoxicity data: A case study of non-standard test data used in environmental risk assessments of pharmaceutical substances. Environ Sci Europe 23:17. doi:10.1186/2190-4715-23-17
5. Alcock RE, MacGillivray BH, and Busby JS. 2011. Understanding the mismatch between the demands of risk assessment and practice of scientists-The case of Deca-BDE. Environ Internat 37:216-25
6. Allanou R, Hansen BG, and van der Bilt Y. 2003. Public Availability of Data on EU High Production Volume Chemicals. Part 1. Available at http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/111111111/1075 (accessed May 27, 2013)
7. Beronius A, Molander L, Rudén C, Hanberg A. 2014. Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: a proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting. J Appl Toxicol JAT. DOI: 10.1002/jat.2991
8. Beronius A, Rudén C, Håkansson H, et al. 2010. Risk to all or none? A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A. Reproduct Toxicol 29:132-46
9. Breton RL, Gilron G, Thompson R, et al. 2009. A new quality assurance system for the evaluation of ecotoxicity studies submitted under the New Substances Notification Regulations in Canada. Integr Environ Assess Manag 5:127-37
10. Calow PP (ed). 1998. Handbook of Environmental Risk Assessment and Management, 1st edit. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, UK
11. Cao J, Guo L-H, Wan B, et al. 2011. In vitro fluorescence displacement investigation of thyroxine transport disruption by bisphenol A. J Environ Sci (China) 23:315-21
12. Durda JL and Preziosi DV. 2000. Data quality evaluation of toxicological studies used to derive ecotoxicological benchmarks. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 6:747-65
13. EC (European Commission). 2002. Guidance Document on Aquatic Ecotoxicology. Plant Protection Products. Brussels, Belgium
14. EC. 2005. The Appropriateness of Existing Methodologies to Assess the Potential Risks Associated with Engineered and Adventitious Products. Brussels, Belgium
15. ECB (European Chemicals Bureau). 2000. Technical Notes for Guidance on Data Requirements for Active Substances and Biocidal Products. Ispra, Italy
16. ECB. 2003. European Commission Technical Guidance Document in Support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on Risk Assessment for New Notified Substances and Commission Regulation (EC). No 1488/94 on Risk Assessment for Existing Substances, Part II., Ispra, Italy
17. ECHA (European Chemicals Agency). 2008. REACH Guidance Documents. Helsinki, Finland
18. ECHA. 2011. The Use Of Alternative to Testing on Animals for the REACH Regulation. Helsinki, Finland
19. ECHA. 2012. How to Report Robust Study Summaries. Practical Guide 3. Version 2.0. Helsinki, Finland
20. ECHA. 2013. Evaluation under REACH. Progress Report 2012. Helsinki, Finland. Available at http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/evaluation_report_2012_en.pdf
21. EDF (Environmental Defense Fund). 1997. Toxic Ignorence. The Continuing Absence of Basic Health Testing for Top-Selling Chemicals in the United States. Washington, DC, USA
22. EMA (European Medicines Agency. 2004. Guideline on the Environmental Impact Assessment for Veterinary Medicinal Products Phase II. London, UK
23. EMA. 2006. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). Guideline on the Environmental Risk Assessment of Medicinal Products for Human Use. Ref EMEA/CRMP/SWP/4447/00. London, UK
24. Handy RD, Owen R, and Valsami-Jones E. 2008. The ecotoxicology of nanoparticles and nanomaterials: Current status, knowledge gaps, challenges, and future needs. Ecotoxicol 17:315-25
25. Hatef A, Alavi SMH, Abdulfatah A, et al. 2012. Adverse effects of bisphenol A on reproductive physiology in male goldfish at environmentally relevant concentrations. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 76:56-62
26. Hobbs DA, Warne MSJ, and Markich SJ. 2005. Evaluation of criteria used to assess the quality of aquatic toxicity data. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1:174-80
27. Jenkins S, Wang J, Eltoum I, et al. 2011. Chronic oral exposure to bisphenol A results in a nonmonotonic dose response in mammary carcinogenesis and metastasis in MMTV-erbB2 mice. Environ Health Perspect 119:1604-9
28. Johnson LL, Borkowf CB, and Albert PS. 2007. Chapter 15-An introduction to biostatistics: Randomization, hypothesis testing, and sample size estimation, In: Gallin JI, Frederick P. Ognibene (eds), Principles and Practice of Clinical Research, 2nd edit, pp 165-96. Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
29. Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, and Tillmann U. 1997. A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regulat Toxicol Pharmacol 25:1-5
30. Krauth D, Woodruff TJ, and Bero L. 2013. Instruments for assessing risk of bias and other methodological criteria of published animal studies: A systematic review. Environ Health Perspect 121(9):985-2
31. Küster A, Bachmann J, Brandt U, et al. 2009. Regulatory demands on data quality for the environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals. Regulat Toxicol Pharmacol 55:276-80
32. Li R, Chen G-Z, Tam NFY, et al. 2009. Toxicity of bisphenol A and its bioaccumulation and removal by a marine microalga Stephanodiscus hantzschii. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 72:321-8
33. Liu Y, Tam NFY, Guan Y, et al. 2011. Acute toxicity of nonylphenols and bisphenol A to the embryonic development of the abalone Haliotis diversicolor supertexta. Ecotoxicol 20:1233-45
34. McCarty LS, Borgert CJ, and Mihaich EM. 2012. Information quality in regulatory decision making: Peer review versus good laboratory practice. Environ Health Perspect 120:927-34
35. Mensink BJWG, Smith CE, and Montforts MHMM. 2008. Manual for Summarizing and Evaluating Aspects of Plant Protection Products. Report number 601712006/2010. ISBN/EAN: 978-90-6960-245-5. Bilthoven, The Netherlands
36. Mita L, Baldi A, Diano N, et al. 2012. Differential accumulation of BPA in some tissues of offspring of Balb-C mice exposed to different BPA doses. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 33:9-15
37. Myers JP, vom Saal FS, Akingbemi BT, et al. 2009. Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: The case of bisphenol A. Environ Health Perspect 117:309-15
38. Norman Network. 2009. Protocol for the validation of chemical and biological monitoring methods. Improved version. Deliverable V4.1. Verneuil-en-Halatte, France
39. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1992. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Fish, Early-Lifa Stage Toxicity Test. OECD 210., Paris, France
40. OECD. 2006. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Freshwater Algae and Cyanobacteria, Growth Inhibition Test, OECD 201., Paris, France
41. OECD. 2008. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of chemicals. Dapnia magna, Reproduction Test. OECD 211., Paris, France
42. Park S-Y and Choi J. 2009. Genotoxic effects of nonylphenol and bisphenol a exposure in aquatic biomonitoring species: Freshwater crustacean, Daphnia magna, and aquatic midge, Chironomus riparius. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 83:463-8
43. Prins GS, Ye S-H, Birch L, et al. 2011. Serum bisphenol A pharmacokinetics and prostate neoplastic responses following oral and subcutaneous exposures in neonatal Sprague-Dawley rats. Reprod Toxicol 31:1-9
44. Rashid H, Ahmad F, Rahman S, et al. 2009. Iron deficiency augments bisphenol A-induced oxidative stress in rats. Toxicology 256:7-12
45. Saito K, Niijima A, Kamite E, et al. 2012. Bisphenol A and estrone-induced developmental effects in early chick embryos. Environ Toxicol 27:58-62
46. Schneider K. 1983. Faking it: The case against Industrial Bio-Test Laboratories. Amicus J (Natural Resources Defense Council):14-26
47. Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, et al. 2009. "ToxRTool," a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol Letters 189:138-44
48. Staples CA, Tilghman Hall A, Friederich U, et al. 2011. Early life-stage and multigeneration toxicity study with bisphenol A and fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas). Ecotoxicol Environ Safety 74:1548-57
49. Swedish Medical Product Agency. 2004. Report in Swedish, to the Swedish Government: Miljöpåverkan från läkemedel samt kosmetiska och hygieniska produkter. Available at http://www.lakemedelsverket.se/overgripande/Publikationer/Listningar/Miljopaverkan-fran-lakemedel-samt-kosmetiska-och-hygieniska-produkter-en-utredningsrapport/ (accessed March 3, 2014)
50. Townend J. 2002. Practical Statistics for Environmental and Biological Scientists, 1st edit. Wiley, Chichester, England
51. Tweedale T. 2010. Good laboratory practices and safety assessments: Another view. Environ Health Perspect 118:A194
52. USFDA (United States Food and Drug Administration). 1998. Guidance for Industry. Environmental Assessment of Human Drug and Biologics Applications. Washington, DC, USA
53. Yan S, Chen Y, Dong M, et al. 2011. Bisphenol A and 17B-estradiol promote arrhythmia in the female heart via alteration of calcium handling. PLoS One 6(9):e25455