Division for In Vitro Toxicology and Biomedicine, Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Universitaetsstrasse 10, 78464, Konstanz, Germany.
Chair of Aroma and Smell Research, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, Henkestrasse 9, 91054, Erlangen, Germany.
Arch Toxicol. 2024 Jul;98(7):1967-1973. doi: 10.1007/s00204-024-03778-3.
Since 2006, the responsible regulatory bodies have proposed five health-based guidance values (HBGV) for bisphenol A (BPA) that differ by a factor of 250,000. This range of HBGVs covers a considerable part of the range from highly toxic to relatively non-toxic substances. As such heterogeneity of regulatory opinions is a challenge not only for scientific risk assessment but also for all stakeholders, the Senate Commission on Food Safety (SKLM) of the German Research Foundation (DFG) analyzed the reasons for the current discrepancy and used this example to suggest improvements for the process of HBGV recommendations. A key aspect for deriving a HBGV is the selection of appropriate studies that allow the identification of a point of departure (PoD) for risk assessment. In the case of BPA, the HBGV derived in the 2023 EFSA assessment was based on a study that reported an increase of Th17 cells in mice with a benchmark dose lower bound (BMDL) of 0.53 µg/kg bw/day. However, this study does not comply with several criteria that are important for scientific risk assessment: (1) the selected end-point, Th17 cell frequency in the spleen of mice, is insufficiently understood with respect to health outcomes. (2) It is unclear, by which mechanism BPA may cause an increase in Th17 cell frequency. (3) It is unknown, if an increase of Th17 cell frequency in rodents is comparably observed in humans. (4) Toxicokinetics were not addressed. (5) Neither the raw data nor the experimental protocols are available. A further particularly important criterion (6) is independent data confirmation which is not available in the present case. Previous studies using other readouts did not observe immune-related adverse effects such as inflammation, even at doses orders of magnitude higher than in the Th17 cell-based study. The SKLM not only provides here key criteria for the use of such studies, but also suggests that the use of such a "checklist" requires a careful and comprehensive scientific judgement of each item. It is concluded that the Th17 cell-based study data do not represent an adequate basis for risk assessment of BPA.
自 2006 年以来,负责的监管机构针对双酚 A(BPA)提出了五个基于健康的指导值(HBGV),相差 25 万倍。这个 HBGV 范围涵盖了从高毒性到相对低毒性物质的相当大一部分。因此,监管意见的这种异质性不仅对科学风险评估,而且对所有利益相关者都是一个挑战,德国研究基金会(DFG)的参议院食品安全委员会(SKLM)分析了当前差异的原因,并以此为例,为 HBGV 建议过程提出了改进建议。得出 HBGV 的一个关键方面是选择适当的研究,这些研究可以确定风险评估的起始点(PoD)。在 BPA 的情况下,2023 年 EFSA 评估中得出的 HBGV 是基于一项研究报告,该研究报告显示,在基准剂量下限(BMDL)为 0.53 µg/kg bw/day 的情况下,小鼠的 Th17 细胞增加。然而,这项研究不符合科学风险评估的几个重要标准:(1)选择的终点,即小鼠脾脏中的 Th17 细胞频率,对于健康结果的理解不够充分。(2)尚不清楚 BPA 可能通过何种机制导致 Th17 细胞频率增加。(3)尚不清楚在啮齿动物中是否可观察到 Th17 细胞频率的增加。(4)毒代动力学未得到解决。(5)既没有原始数据,也没有实验方案。另一个特别重要的标准(6)是独立的数据确认,在目前的情况下并不存在。以前使用其他指标的研究没有观察到免疫相关的不良反应,如炎症,即使在比基于 Th17 细胞的研究高几个数量级的剂量下也是如此。SKLM 不仅在此处提供了使用此类研究的关键标准,还建议使用此类“清单”需要对每个项目进行仔细和全面的科学判断。结论是,基于 Th17 细胞的研究数据不能代表 BPA 风险评估的充分依据。