OECD test strategies and methods for endocrine disruptors.

Abstract The question whether (man-made or natural) chemical substances may have an adverse effect on the endocrine system has gained high visibility in the public as well as in the scientific community. This relates to possible effects on the environment as well as on human health for chemicals with (anti)estrogenic, (anti)androgenic or (anti)thyroid activity. Taking into account the broad universe of chemicals to which humans or the environment may be exposed, a sound testing strategy and robust test methods are urgently needed. Both subjects have been addressed by a specific OECD working group (EDTA – Endocrine Disruptor Testing and Assessment Task Force) involving regulatory agencies, the scientific community, chemical industry and NGOs. Like other organizations the OECD has adopted a tiered-testing strategy with the first tier using screening assays as quick and inexpensive tools, providing a way of generating alerts to potential endocrine activity that can be used to prioritize substances for definitive tests that then can determine the toxicological consequences of endocrine toxicity. The efforts of the OECD have therefore concentrated on the validation of specific screening and testing guidelines, like the uterotrophic, the Hershberger, and the “enhanced TG 407” test. The experimental testing necessary for this validation procedure is completed for the uterotrophic and the “enhanced TG 407” tests and near completion for the Hershberger assay. The data obtained so far have been published (for the uterotrophic assay) or will be submitted to the EDTA working group for final evaluation. Overall, the validation program has been very successful and should be sufficient for setting up OECD test guidelines for these experimental procedures. This will add substantially to the “tool-box” of OECD test methods that is available internationally to regulatory agencies and chemical industry for the identification and assessment of possible endocrine disruptors. Despite this success it is well recognized that the methodological “tool-box” should be supplemented by further screening and testing procedures related to effects on human health and the environment.