Actualités- Perturbateurs Endocriniens

Thèmes Perturbateurs Endocriniens: Tribunal de l’Union Européenne-Condamnation de la Commission Européenne; Parlement Européen- Contre recyclage des plastiques PVC avec DEHP; PNRPE- 2e Colloque international

Législation

“Tribunal de l’Union Européenne : Condamnation De La Commission En Matière De Perturbateurs Endocriniens”
tribunal“21 Décembre- Le Tribunal de l’Union européenne juge que la Commission a violé le droit de l’Union en n’adoptant pas des actes concernant la spécification des critères scientifiques pour la détermination des propriétés perturbant le système endocrinien.
Un règlement européen du 22 mai 2012 concernant la mise à disposition sur le marché et l’utilisation des produits biocides, énonce les substances actives qui ne peuvent pas, en principe, être mises sur le marché, en particulier celles perturbant le système endocrinien. Selon ce règlement, la Commission européenne devait adopter les actes concernant la spécification des critères scientifiques pour la détermination des propriétés perturbant le système endocrinien au plus tard le 13 décembre 2013.
Devant l’absence de publication des dits actes, la Suède a alors saisi la justice européenne d’un recours visant à faire constater que, en n’adoptant pas les actes prévus dans le règlement, la Commission a violé celui-ci.
Dans une décision du 16 décembre 2015, le Tribunal de l’Union européenne (TUE), retient que le libellé du règlement du 22 mai 2012 est parfaitement clair et ne donne lieu à aucune ambiguïté concernant l’obligation incombant à la Commission européenne. Il constate également que le législateur européen n’a ni modifié, ni abrogé, ni même proposé au législateur de modifier le règlement afin de procéder au report de cette date.
Il ajoute que l’existence de critiques sur les critères scientifiques qu’elle avait proposés est sans influence sur le fait qu’une obligation d’agir au plus tard le 13 décembre 2013 pesait sur la Commission, via l’adoption des actes délégués visés par le règlement.
Au surplus, la circonstance que le règlement vise également à améliorer le fonctionnement du marché intérieur ne saurait en aucun cas, à elle seule, remettre en cause l’obligation claire, précise et inconditionnelle pour la Commission d’adopter des actes délégués ni permettre à la Commission de s’y soustraire.
Enfin, le Tribunal juge que, contrairement à ce que soutien la Commission, aucune disposition du règlement n’exige de procéder à une analyse d’impact en vue d’évaluer les incidences des différentes solutions envisageables, et que même si tel était le cas, cela ne l’exonérerait en rien de respecter la date fixée pour l’adoption des actes délégués. (…)”
Sources:
http://www.lemondedudroit.fr/europe-international/212866-tue-condamnation-de-la-commission-en-matiere-de-perturbateurs-endocriniens.html
http://www.reference-environnement.com/2015/12/21/definition-des-perturbateurs-endocriniens-la-commission-europeenne-condamnee-par-la-cour-de-justice/
http://www.quechoisir.org/sante-bien-etre/hygiene-beaute/actualite-perturbateurs-endocriniens-la-commission-europeenne-condamnee
http://maplanete.blogs.sudouest.fr/archive/2015/12/18/ogm-ca-chauffe-au-parlement-europeen-1044855.html
http://www.veille-infosplus.fr/filagenda/54362/perturbateurs-endocriniens-le-tribunal-de-lunion-europeenne-vient-de-condamner-la-commission-europeenne-pour-manquement-a-ses-obligations-communique/
http://www.actu-environnement.com/ae/news/perturbateurs-endocriniens-la-commission-europeenne-condamnee-pour-retard-definition-25900.php4#xtor=EPR-1
http://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/perturbateurs-endocriniens-l-europe-accusee-d-avoir-laisse-trop-de-temps-a-l-industrie.N369827
http://www.mychemicalmonitoring.eu/news/a401921a-65ca-4c7a-aad8-999811e25138/Endocrine-disruptors_the_European_Commission_has_breached_the_law
http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2015-12/cp150145fr.pdf
http://www.techniques-ingenieur.fr/actualite/articles/la-justice-europeenne-sanctionne-la-commission-sur-les-perturbateurs-endocriniens-30734/

“Les Eurodéputés S’opposent Au Recyclage Des Plastiques Contenant Un Perturbateur Endocrinien”
shutterstock_218538277“27.11.2015-Le Parlement européen s’est massivement prononcé contre un projet de la Commission visant à permettre le recyclage des plastiques PVC à base de DEHP, un phtalate interdit depuis février 2015 dans l’UE. Un article de notre partenaire le Journal de l’environnement.
Selon le règlement REACH, le DEHP, considéré comme un perturbateur endocrinien, est interdit depuis le 21 février 2015, sauf autorisation spécifique accordée par la Commission européenne à des entreprises en ayant fait la demande expresse pour des utilisations précises.
Or dans un projet de décision, qui reste à valider par le Conseil de l’UE, la Commission européenne souhaite autoriser le recyclage des anciens plastiques contenant du DEHP, en vue de fabriquer, par exemple, des chaussures et des revêtements pour le sol, cite le Parlement, qui y voit un projet inacceptable.
Mercredi 25 novembre en session plénière, il a voté une résolution demandant à la Commission de retirer son projet. Déposé par les députés Pavel Poc (Socialistes & démocrates, République tchèque), Kateřina Konečná (Gauche unitaire européenne, République tchèque) et Bas Eickhout (Verts, Pays-Bas), le texte a recueilli 603 voix pour, 86 contre et 5 abstentions.(…)”
Source:
http://www.euractiv.fr/sections/sante-modes-de-vie/les-eurodeputes-sopposent-au-recyclage-des-plastiques-contenant-un

Conférences

“2e Colloque international du PNRPE”
logo_hteDef

“Organisé par : MEDDE/Anses du 21- 22.01.2016
Lieu : Institut Pasteur – Auditorium Centre d’information scientifique (CIS)
Sujet : Les perturbateurs endocriniens : effets sur les écosystèmes et la santé humaine
La 2e édition du colloque scientifique international du Programme national de recherche sur les perturbateurs endocriniens (PNRPE) portera sur les effets que peuvent provoquer les perturbateurs endocriniens sur les écosystèmes et sur la santé humaine. Sont considérées comme perturbateurs endocriniens les nombreuses substances capables d’interférer avec la régulation hormonale des êtres vivants. Chez l’être humain comme pour la faune, les conséquences sanitaires potentielles de ces interférences peuvent être diverses : troubles de la fertilité, du développement, du métabolisme ou du comportement, atteintes du système immunitaire, cancers, etc.
Le colloque s’articulera autour de plusieurs sessions abordant les thèmes suivants :

Effets épigénétiques et transgénérationnels
Mécanismes d’adaptation des écosystèmes
Désordres métaboliques, diabète
Neuro-développement et mécanismes neuroendocriniens
Système reproducteur (avec un focus sur les organes femelles)
Pesticides et toxines naturelles dans l’alimentation
Système immunitaire et allergies
Perturbation endocrinienne et cancer
Bisphénol A et ses substituts

Suite à la présentation des dernières avancées scientifiques dans le domaine de la perturbation endocrinienne par des chercheurs internationalement reconnus : Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, Germaine Buck-Louis, René Habert, Christy Morrisey et Leo Trasande…,le colloque sera clôturé par une table-ronde réunissant les parties prenantes.
Ce colloque est financé par le Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement durable et de l’Energie.
Comité scientifique : Barbara Demeneix (présidente), Gérard Lasfargues, Niels-Erik Skakkebaek, Rémy Slama.(…)”
Source:
https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/2e-colloque-international-du-pnrpe-paris

Publicités

Pertubateurs Endocriniens- Actualités

Pertubateurs Endocriniens- Actualités : Synthèse INSERM, les Perturbateurs endocriniens; European Commission’s 2016 work plan missed opportunity on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals


France

« Dossier- Les Perturbateurs Endocriniens »- Inserm

« Dossier réalisé en collaboration avec Robert Barouki (unité 1124 Inserm/Université Paris Descartes, Toxicologie, pharmacologie et signalisation cellulaire, Paris)
Les perturbateurs endocriniens regroupent une vaste famille de composés capables d’interagir avec le système hormonal, et notamment avec notre métabolisme ou nos fonctions reproductrices. Leur étude représente un enjeu majeur pour la recherche, le corps médical et les pouvoirs publics car les sources d’exposition sont nombreuses et difficiles à maîtriser, tandis que les conséquences biologiques de ces expositions sont encore mal appréhendées et complexes à étudier.
Dossier réactualisé et complet abordant les thèmes : le système hormonal sous le feu des perturbateurs endocriniens ; Air, eau, aliments… : les sources d’exposition multiples; La recherche face à de nouveaux paradigmes;actualités, communiqués de presse, expertises collective de l’Inserm, autres sources et vidéos (…) »
Source :
http://www.inserm.fr/thematiques/sante-publique/dossiers-d-information/les-perturbateurs-endocriniens

Commission Européenne

« European Commission’s 2016 Work Plan ‘Missed Opportunity’ on EDCs »- Chemical Watch

« The European Commission says it will conclude its preparatory work on the dangers of endocrine disruptors and “follow up on it” in its 2016 work plan, released this week. In January, the Commission said that a legislative proposal on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) criteria would be issued, after an impact assessment is concluded « in 2016 ». This assessment started last year, following publication of the EDC roadmap. A public consultation organised to feed into this ended in mid-January . (…) »
Sources :
https://chemicalwatch.com/43320/european-commissions-2016-work-plan-missed-opportunity-on-edcs
Commission Work Programme 2016 : http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/pdf/cwp_2016_en.pdf

« Evidence for EDCs More Definitive Than Ever »

« Endocrine Society calls for regulation to ensure pre-market testing for such effects. Evidence that some chemicals disrupt hormones, in a way that causes a range of serious health problems, has become more compelling, says international scientific organisation the Endocrine Society.

The organisation published a review of the evidence from the last five years. This concludes that exposure to chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, flame retardants and pesticides such as atrazine and DDT, is associated with an increased risk of diabetes and obesity, infertility, hormone-related cancers, prostate conditions, thyroid disorders and neurodevelopmental issues.

“The evidence is more definitive than ever before – endocrine disrupting chemicals disrupt hormones in a manner that harms human health,” said Andrea Gore, professor and Vacek chair of pharmacology at the University of Texas, and chair of the task force that produced the statement.

“Hundreds of studies are pointing to the same conclusion, whether they are long-term epidemiological studies in humans, basic research in animals and cells, or research into groups of people with known occupational exposure to specific chemicals.

“It is clear we need to take action to minimise further exposure,” said professor Gore. “With more chemicals being introduced into the marketplace all the time, better safety testing is needed to identify new EDCs and ensure they are kept out if household goods.”

In the statement, the society calls for:

  • regulation to ensure that chemicals are tested for endocrine activity, including at low doses, prior to being permitted for use;
  • additional research to infer more directly cause-and-effect relationships between EDC exposure and health conditions;
  • advice for the public and policymakers on “how to keep EDCs out of food, water and the air, as well as ways to protect unborn children from exposure”; and
  • chemists to create products that test for and eliminate potential EDCs.

“The science is clear and it’s time for policymakers to take this wealth of evidence into account as they develop legislation,” said society member Jean-Pierre Bourguignon, professor of paediatrics at the University of Liège.

A global issue

The statement executive summary says, although some countries and US states have banned some EDCs, “the fact that EDCs are ubiquitous makes it a global issue that requires international partnerships among developed and developing nations.”

It also backs the “evidence integration” philosophy of the US National Toxicology Program in deciding whether a chemical may have a health impact.

“When high-quality endocrinological studies demonstrate that a chemical interferes with hormone action in vivo and in vitro at environmentally (human) relevant concentrations, and when we have a high degree of evidence that these hormone systems are essential for normal development, it is reasonable to infer that these chemicals will produce adverse effects in humans,” says the summary.

To back up its call for the provision of “substantial information” before a chemical can be used in household products, it says BPS, which has been used to replace BPA, “is now shown to have endocrine-disrupting activity on a par with BPA”.

NGOs welcomed the statement. The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) urged countries at the UN conference to back a proposed Resolution on EDCs put forward by developing countries. Healthcare Without Harm (HCWH) irged EU policy makers to identify EDCs in medical devices and to replace them with safer alternatives. »

endocrine-society


Sources:
Article (29 September 2015) : https://chemicalwatch.com/37422/evidence-for-edcs-more-definitive-than-ever
Endocrine Society press release : http://www.endocrine.org/news-room/current-press-releases/chemical-exposure-linked-to-rising-diabetes-obesity-risk
Statement executive summary : http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/er.2015-1093
HEAL press release : http://www.env-health.org/resources/press-releases/article/heal-reaction-to-endocrine-society
HCWH statement : https://noharm-europe.org/articles/news/europe/hcwh-europe-welcomes-endocrine-societys-scientific-statement-endocrine

Guest Column – Dr Sue Marty on Endocrine Disruptors

« Recent reports have raised questions about the possible effects of some chemicals on the human endocrine system.
Some natural and man-made chemicals can and do interact with the endocrine system, or are “endocrine-active.” In some cases, this interaction is harmless – the substances lack sufficient potency, or exposures are so low that no effects occur at all; in other cases, the body naturally adjusts, and the exposure causes no health effect.

your-endocrine-system-2-300

However, some substances under certain exposure scenarios go beyond a simple interaction and can result in adverse health effects – these substances are referred to as “endocrine disruptors”.

Through governmental, academic and industry efforts, considerable progress has been made to develop methods, tests and data to help answer questions about whether and how certain chemicals may affect the endocrine system. However, some recent studies have failed to incorporate critical information including exposure and weight-of-evidence analysis or have used unreliable methods, reducing their relevance to sound decision making.

More research is needed to better understand whether, how and to what effect specific chemicals interact with the endocrine system.

By improving screening and testing, regulatory agencies can make decisions based on scientific evidence as they develop and implement programmes intended to reduce risks associated with endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs).

The American Chemistry Council (ACC) recently released 11 “Principles for Identifying Endocrine-Active and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals”, a set of recommendations to promote reliability, consistency and scientific integrity in the screening and testing of chemicals for endocrine activity and endocrine disruption.

These principles are industry’s latest contribution to advancing scientific understanding of endocrine-active and endocrine disrupting chemicals. Industry’s Long Range Research Initiative also has developed cutting-edge screens and tests to support these efforts and has made substantial contributions to development of high-throughput tools that can help prioritise and screen chemicals at a much faster pace than traditional methods.

Chemical manufacturers also have participated in the US EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Programme and have submitted data and analysis on test-method development and chemicals, for use by regulators to determine whether they activate the endocrine system and, if so, whether they cause adverse health effects due to that interaction.

Chemistry is fundamental to human life; everything is made of chemicals, including the human body and all of nature. Chemical manufacturers take seriously their responsibility to produce chemistries that enable important product performance benefits and that can be used safely, and they undertake extensive scientific analyses to evaluate potential risk of their chemicals, from development through use and safe disposal.

Box: Summary of the 11 principles

1. Apply precise and accurate characterisations to chemicals: Chemicals should not be labelled as endocrine disruptors unless there is scientific consensus that they cause adverse health effects through an endocrine mediated pathway. This will prevent confusion and potential unnecessary market disruption.

2. Adhere to credible testing methods and data: Programmes should incorporate objective measures of data quality and follow Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) guidelines for good laboratory practices.

3. Conduct thorough investigation: Screens and tests should examine hormone-related effects, characterise systemic toxicity and consider biological factors such as absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion.

4. Mutual acceptance of data: Data from tests, conducted according to OECD guidelines, should be acceptable for use by multiple organisations so duplicative testing can be minimised.

5. Engage in transparent decision making: Testing programmes should engage in clear, public and consistent decision-making processes.

6. Be effective and efficient: Testing programmes should be designed to maximise efficiency and minimise delays.

7. Apply advanced technology: Programmes should utilise validated, new technologies to increase progress and reduce the need for animal testing.

8. Consider real world exposures: Testing programmes must incorporate relevant exposure information so conclusions are based on actual risk, not solely on hazard.

9. Incorporate weight-of-evidence analysis: All credible evidence should be incorporated to ensure that the most reliable and relevant studies carry the greatest influence on conclusions and outliers do not skew findings.

10. Embrace a proactive approach: Screens and tests should be highly sensitive and as accurate as possible. Screens should err on the side of over-identification, and in cases where results are ambiguous, further testing should be pursued.

11. Accept safe levels of exposure: Thorough examination can identify safe exposure levels. The hypothesis that low levels of exposure can cause harmful effects that are not adequately captured by traditional toxicological studies is often discussed, but rigorous reviews by scientists at regulatory agencies have been unable to validate the hypothesis, so changes to current testing and safety assessment approaches are not warranted. »


Source:
Article of Dr Sue Marty, PhD, ICCA representative on Unep Advisory Group on Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals; Dr Marty is also toxicology and environmental research and consulting science leader at The Dow Chemical Company.
https://chemicalwatch.com/43070/guest-column-dr-sue-marty-on-edcs

Cet article n’engage que son auteur/ This article is the sole responsibility of the author

National Academy of Sciences to Examine Low-dose Toxicity

« A new committee of the National Academy of Sciences will examine whether the current toxicity testing practices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adequately consider adverse human health effects of low doses of endocrine-active chemicals.0013

Committee activities will include convening a scientific workshop to support systematic reviews of human and animal toxicology data for chemicals that affect the estrogen or androgen system.

The committee will also consider how to use adverse outcome pathway (AOP) or other mechanistic data, including high-throughput data and pharmacokinetic information, to elucidate under what circumstances human and animal data may be concordant or discordant.

The committee held its first meeting Oct. 13; the next meeting will be on Nov. 17–18 in Washington, D.C. Information on the committee, including links to information about upcoming meetings and a list of committee members, is available on the National Academies website. « 


Source:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/projectview.aspx?key=49716

Cet article n’engage que son auteur/ This article is the sole responsibility of the author

NTP Seeks Information on Substances Nominated to Roc

« TBBPA and fluoride included- “The US National Toxicology Program has asked for information on six substances, nominated for the Report on Carcinogens.
The RoC is a congressionally mandated health report that identifies potential carcinogens in the environment. The most recent version of the biennial report was released 2 October 2014.

The 14th RoC is currently under development.
The substances, which have been nominated for possible review to be considered for future editions of the report, include the widely used brominated flame retardant TBBPA and two water disinfection byproducts.

The six are:

• pentabromodiphenyl ether mixture (DE-71);
• TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A);
• dibromoacetonitrile;
• di- and tri-haloacetic acids (as a class);
• fluoride; and
• vinylidene chloride.

Information will be accepted by the NTP until 6 November and used to determine which substances to propose for formal health hazard evaluation.

For each substance, the interagency programme seeks:

• data on production, use and exposures;
• relevant planned, or published, studies of health effects;
• scientific information that can assist in prioritising and assessing health effects; and
• contacts within the scientific community with expertise or knowledge of the substance.

The NTP’s Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT), meanwhile, is seeking information to evaluate fluoride for developmental neurotoxicity and endocrine disruption. »


Sources:
https://chemicalwatch.com/42962/ntp-seeks-information-on-substances-nominated-to-roc
Federal Register : https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/10/07/2015-25434/nominations-to-the-report-on-carcinogens-and-office-of-health-assessment-and-translation-request-for
NTP nominations : http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/pubhealth/roc/noms/index.html

Cet article n’engage que son auteur/ This article is the sole responsibility of the author

Head of ECHA, Geert Dancet, Urges EU Commission to Remedy Nanomaterials ‘Headache’

« ECHA head repeats call for REACH annexes to be amended quickly.
“The head of ECHA, Geert Dancet, has repeated the plea he made to the European Commission, last year, for it to speedily issue proposed information requirements for the registration of nanomaterials.

The proposals were originally expected from the Commission 18 months ago but have been delayed by difficulties in finalising the related impact assessment.
In his annual presentation to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, he said that “on the substances that matter most, there remain two headaches for us” – nanomaterials and endocrine disruptors.

Outlining the work Echa currently does, he explained that the agency sends individual information requests to companies, when it finds a REACH registration dossier that appears to cover the production or use of a substance in the nanoform.

But many of its requests to the registrants, for more information, have been appealed by the companies involved, and, once an appeal has been made, the information request is suspended, “which means we are unable to learn more about the impact of nanos”.
Mr Dancet said that while 5 % of all of Echa’s dossier compliance check decisions have been appealed, the figure rises to 40 % when the decision covers nanoforms.
He added that he was “particularly concerned” that some companies “are even challenging the premise that REACH covers nanos at all”.

Therefore, he said, “I repeat my hope of last year that the Commission will revise the REACH annexes [covering dossier information requirements] so that we can effectively implement REACH and reduce the legal uncertainties.”
In response, Klaus Berend, head of the REACH unit in the Commission industry directorate, DG GROW, told the committee the Commission is “working very intensely” on finalising the impact assessment, but it “has not been easy because we have to balance the need for more clarity with the costs for companies that work in this highly innovative area, especially for SMEs.”

The Commission plans to achieve this by the end of 2015, he said, and to have a proposal for amending the annexes “very soon thereafter”.

EDCs a ‘similar story’

Mr Dancet said there was “a similar story” on endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Here again, work on an impact assessment must be completed, before long awaited criteria for their identification will be proposed by the Commission.
Last year, Sweden launched legal proceedings against the Commission because it failed to introduce criteria for EDCs for biocides, by the deadline stipulated in the EU biocidal products Regulation.

Although Echa is using the World Health Organization to identify EDCs, said Mr Dancet, “it would be clearer for everybody involved if there were EU criteria for this important group of SVHCs.”

VIDEO


Sources:
Article of Geraint Roberts
https://chemicalwatch.com/43022/dancet-urges-eu-commission-to-remedy-nanomaterials-headache
Committee video : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20151006IPR96128/html/Committee-on-the-Environment-Public-Health-and-Food-Safety

Cet article n’engage que son auteur/ This article is the sole responsibility of the author.