Melching-Kollmuss Stephanie, Sauer Ursula G, Gatto Valeria, Stinchcombe Stefan, Tinwell Helen
Regulation Agrochemicals, BASF SE, APD/ET. Li 444, Speyerer Strasse 2, 67117, Limburgerhof, Germany.
Scientific Consultancy, Animal Welfare, Neubiberg, Germany.
Arch Toxicol. 2025 May 10. doi: 10.1007/s00204-025-04037-9.
Recently, the European Commission has implemented hazard categories to classify substances as endocrine disruptors for human health, i.e. ED HH 1 or ED HH 2, depending on the weight-of-evidence. However, specific guidance on how to differentiate between the two is unavailable. This article presents the CropLife Europe (CLE) proposal for a structured approach to support the ED HH classification for the thyroid modality. Further, the Thyroid Function-Related Neurodevelopmental Toxicity Testing and Assessment Scheme (Thyroid-NDT-TAS) has been modified in view of the new classification. Application of the CLE proposal and the modified Thyroid-NDT-TAS is illustrated in four case studies covering active substances in plant protection products that showed thyroid- and liver-related effects in laboratory animal studies (pyrimethanil, boscalid, metribuzin, ethiprole). For all four substances, there is strong and consistent evidence that the thyroid-related endocrine activity in rats is liver enzyme induction-mediated, a mode-of-action that is of questionable relevance to humans. In vitro species comparisons (unavailable for pyrimethanil) further confirm non-relevance to humans. However, pyrimethanil (and boscalid) did not elicit developmental neurotoxicity in rats. For pyrimethanil, boscalid and ethiprole, the overall weight-of-evidence determination yields the conclusion "no ED HH via the thyroid modality". For metribuzin, category ED HH 2 may be triggered due to uncertainties related to its database. The case studies underline that expert judgement is required to assess overall effect patterns, to balance the available evidence and to conclude on classification as ED HH 1, ED HH 2 or no ED HH via the thyroid modality.
最近,欧盟委员会已实施危害类别,根据证据权重将物质分类为对人类健康有内分泌干扰作用的物质,即ED HH 1或ED HH 2。然而,关于如何区分这两者的具体指南尚不可用。本文介绍了欧洲作物保护协会(CLE)提出的一种结构化方法,以支持甲状腺模式的ED HH分类。此外,鉴于新的分类,甲状腺功能相关神经发育毒性测试和评估方案(Thyroid-NDT-TAS)已得到修改。在四个案例研究中展示了CLE提案和修改后的Thyroid-NDT-TAS的应用,这些案例研究涵盖了植物保护产品中的活性物质,这些活性物质在实验动物研究中显示出与甲状腺和肝脏相关的影响(嘧霉胺、啶酰菌胺、嗪草酮、乙虫腈)。对于所有这四种物质,有强有力且一致的证据表明,大鼠体内与甲状腺相关的内分泌活性是由肝酶诱导介导的,这种作用模式与人类的相关性存疑。体外物种比较(嘧霉胺不可用)进一步证实了与人类的不相关性。然而,嘧霉胺(和啶酰菌胺)在大鼠中未引发发育神经毒性。对于嘧霉胺、啶酰菌胺和乙虫腈,总体证据权重判定得出“通过甲状腺模式无ED HH”的结论。对于嗪草酮,由于其数据库存在不确定性,可能触发ED HH 2类别。这些案例研究强调,需要专家判断来评估总体效应模式,平衡现有证据,并就通过甲状腺模式分类为ED HH 1、ED HH 2或无ED HH得出结论。