Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 91, Issue 8, pp 2745–2762 | Cite as

Human cost burden of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. A critical review

  • Gregory G. BondEmail author
  • Daniel R. Dietrich
Review Article


Recently published papers have alleged that exposures to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are causing substantial disease burdens in the EU and US and are consequently costing society hundreds of billions of dollars annually. To date, these cost estimates have not undergone adequate scientific scrutiny, but nevertheless are being used aggressively in advocacy campaigns in an attempt to fundamentally change how chemicals are tested, evaluated and regulated. Consequently, we critically evaluated the underlying methodology and assumptions employed by the chief architects of the disease burden cost estimates. Since the vast majority of their assigned disease burden costs are driven by the assumption that “loss of IQ” and “increased prevalence of intellectual disability” are caused by exposures to organophosphate pesticides (OPPs) and brominated flame retardants (PBDEs), we have taken special care in describing and evaluating the underlying toxicology and epidemiology evidence that was relied upon. Unfortunately, our review uncovered substantial flaws in the approach taken and the conclusions that were drawn. Indeed, the authors of these papers assumed causal relationships between putative exposures to EDCs and selected diseases, i.e., “loss of IQ” and “increased prevalence of intellectual disability”, despite not having established them via a thorough evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the underlying animal toxicology and human epidemiology evidence. Consequently, the assigned disease burden costs are highly speculative and should not be considered in the weight of evidence approach underlying any serious policy discussions serving to protect the public and regulate chemicals considered as EDCs.


Epidemiology Endocrine Chemicals Intellectual disability IQ Neurobehavioral Policy Toxicology 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical standards

The manuscript does not contain clinical studies or patient data.

Conflict of interest

GGB provides consulting services to the American Chemistry Council. DRD declares that he has no conflicts of interest.


  1. Agarwal V et al (2014) Biosynthesis of polybrominated aromatic organic compounds by marine bacteria. Nat Chem Biol 10:640–647. doi: 10.1038/nchembio.1564 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen S et al (2016) An appeal for the integrity of science and public policy. Toxicology 371:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.tox2016.08.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschner M et al (2016) Reference compounds for alternative test methods to indicate developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential of chemicals: example lists and criteria for their selection and use. Altex 34:1. doi: 10.14573/altex.1604201 Google Scholar
  4. Attina T et al (2016) Exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the USA: a population-based disease burden and cost analysis. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 4:996–1003. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(16)30275-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Attina TM, Trasande L (2013) Economic costs of childhood lead exposure in low- and middle-income countries. Environ Health Perspect 121:1097–1102PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Beausoleil C et al (2016) Review of non-monotonic dose-responses of substances for human risk assessment. Support Publ 13(5). doi: 10.2903/sp.efsa.2016.EN-1027
  7. Becker K et al (2007) German environmental survey for children, 2003/06. Available at Accessed 4 Jan 2017
  8. Bellanger M et al (2015) Neurobehavioral deficits, diseases, and associated costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(4):1256–1266. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-432 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Bergman A et al (2013) State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals, 2012. United Nations Environment Programme and the World Health Organization.
  10. Bonde JP et al (2016) The epidemiologic evidence linking prenatal and postnatal exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals with male reproductive disorders: a systematic review and meta analysis. Hum Reprod Update. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmw036 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Borgert C et al (2013) Potency matters: thresholds govern endocrine activity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67(1):83–88. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.06.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Bruce N et al (2014) WHO Indoor air quality guidelines: household fuel combustion. Methods used for assessment. Available at Accessed 1 Mar 2015
  13. Burns C et al (2013) Pesticide exposure and neurodevelopmental outcomes: review of the epidemiologic and animal Studies. J Toxicol Environ Health 16(3–4):127–283. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2013.783383 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen A et al (2014) Prenatal polybrominated diphenyl ether exposures and neurodevelopment in US children through 5 years of age: the HOME Study. Environ Health Perspect 122(8):856–862PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Chen H et al (2016) BDE-47 and BDE-49 inhibit axonal growth in primary rat hippocampal neuron-glia co-cultures via ryanodine receptor-dependent mechanisms. Toxicol Sci. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfw259 PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Choksi NY et al (2003) Role of thyroid hormones in human and laboratory animal reproductive health. Birth Defects Res (Part B) 68:479–491. doi: 10.1002/bdrb.10045 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Covaci A et al (2014) Urinary BPA measurements in children and mothers from six European member states: overall results and determinants of exposure. Environ Res. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2014.08.008i Google Scholar
  18. Crofton KM (2008) Thyroid disrupting chemicals: mechanisms and mixtures. Int J Androl 31:209–223. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2605.2007.00857.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Crofton KM, Zoller RT (2005) Mode of action: neurotoxicity induced by thyroid hormone disruption during development—hearing loss resulting from exposure to PHAHs. Crit Rev Toxicol 35:757–769. doi: 10.1080/10408440591007304 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Danish EPA (2011) Establishment of criteria for endocrine disruptors and options for regulation. Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  21. DE-UK (2011) Joint DE-UK Position Paper. Regulatory definition of an endocrine disrupter in relation to potential threat to human health. Proposal applicable in the regulatory context of plant protection products, biocidial products, and chemicals targeted within REACH.
  22. Den Hond E et al (2015) First steps toward harmonized human biomonitoring in Europe: demonstration project to perform human biomonitoring on a European scale. Environ Health Perspect. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408616 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2009) Fourth national report on human exposure to environmental chemicals 2009. Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  24. Dietrich D et al (2016) Allowing pseudoscience into EU risk assessment processes is eroding public trust in science experts and in science as a whole: the bigger picture. Chemico-Biol Interact 257(2016):1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dietrich DR, Hengstler JG (2016) Highlight report: from bisphenol A to bisphenol F and a ban of mustard due to chronic low dose exposures? Arch Toxicol 90(2):489–491. doi: 10.1007/s00204-016-1671-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dingemans MML et al (2011) Review: neurotoxicity of brominated flame retardants: (In)direct effects of parent and hydroxylated polybrominated diphenyl ethers on the (developing) nervous system. Environ Health Perspect. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1003035 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Dohler KD et al (1979) The rat as a model for the study of drug effects on thyroid function: consideration of methodological problems. Pharmacol Ther 5:305–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eaton D et al (2008) Review of the toxicology of chlorpyrifos with an emphasis on human exposure and neurodevelopment. Crit Rev Toxicol 38(Sup 2):1–125. doi: 10.1080/10408440802272158 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Eskenazi B et al (2013) In utero and childhood polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE) exposures and neurodevelopment in the CHAMACOS study. Environ Health Perspect 121:257–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. European Commission (2013) JRC scientific and policy reports: key scientific issues relevant to the identification and characterization of endocrine disrupting substances. Rep Endocr Disrupt Expert Advisory Group. doi: 10.2788/8659 (online)
  31. European Commission (2016a) Staff working document: defining criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors in the context of the implementation of the plant protection products regulation and biocidal products regulation
  32. European Commission (2016b) Rules of procedure for the scientific committees on consumer safety (SCCS) and health, environmental and emerging risks (SCHEER). Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  33. Fritsche E et al (2005) Polychlorinated biphenyls disturb differentiation of normal human neural progenitor cells: clue for involvement of thyroid hormone receptors. Environ Health Perspect 113:871–876. doi: 10.1289/ehp.7793 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Govarts E et al (2012) Birth weight and prenatal exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE): a meta-analysis within 12 European birth cohorts. Environ Health Perspect 120:162–170. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1103767 (online 13 October) CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Gray E (2013) Non-monotonic dose response curves (NMDRCs) are common after estrogen or androgen signaling pathway disruption. Fact or falderal? Presented at Risk Assessment Specialty Section, Society of Toxicology sponsored RASS Webinar, May 08, 2013. Available on-line at
  36. Hauser R et al (2015) Male reproductive disorders, diseases, and costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(4):1267–1277. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4325 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Herbstman J et al (2010) Prenatal exposure to PBDEs and neurodevelopment. Environ Health Perspect 118:712–719CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Hsu CC, Sanford B (2007) The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval 12(10):1–8Google Scholar
  39. Hunt PA et al (2016) Female reproductive disorders, diseases, and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-2873#sthash.uhE1pZY.dpuf PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Huwe JK, Smith DJ (2007) Accumulation, whole-body depletion, and debromination of decabromodiphenyl ether in male Sprague−Dawley rats following dietary exposure. Environ Sci Technol 41(7):2371–2377. doi: 10.1021/es061954d CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2005) Guidance notes for lead authors of the IPCC fourth assessment report on addressing uncertainties. Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  42. Ioannidis J (2005) Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2(8):124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ioannidis J (2016) We have an epidemic of deeply flawed meta-analyses, says John Ioannidis. Retraction Watch.
  44. Kim YR et al (2014) Health consequences of exposure to brominated flame retardants: a systematic review. Chemosphere 106:1–19. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2013.12.064 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. LaKind J et al (2015) Improving concordance in environmental epidemiology: a three-part proposal. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B 18(3):105–120. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2015.1051612 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lamb J et al (2014) Critical comments on the WHO-UNEP state of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals–2012. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 69:22–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Legler J et al (2015) Obesity, diabetes, and associated costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(4):1278–1288. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4326 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Li A et al (2012) Evaluation of epidemiology and animal data for risk assessment: chlorpyrifos developmental neurobehavioral outcomes. J Toxicol Environ Health Part B 15(2):109–184. doi: 10.1080/10937404.2012.645142Journal CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Linares V et al (2015) Human exposure to PBDE and critical evaluation of health hazards. Arch Toxicol 89:335. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1457-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mercè Garí M, Grimalt JO (2013) Inverse age-dependent accumulation of decabromodiphenyl ether and other PBDEs in serum from a general adult population. Environ Int 54:119–127. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2013.01.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Middelbeek RJ, Veuger SA (2015) Letter to the Editor: Re: neurobehavioral deficits, diseases, and associated costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-2010 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  52. Ntzani E et al (2013) Literature review of epidemiology studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects. EFSA Supporting Publication EN:497, pages 159.
  53. OECD (2012) Guidance document on standardised test guidelines for evaluating chemicals for endocrine disruption, series on testing and assessment, No. 150, ENV/JM/MONO 22 Accessed 2 Nov 2016
  54. Polloca G et al (2016) Identification of transcriptome signatures and biomarkers specific for potential developmental toxicants inhibiting human neural crest cell migration. Arch Toxicol 90(1):159–180. doi: 10.1007/s00204-015-1658-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Prueitt R et al (2011) Hypothesis-based weight of evidence evaluation of the neurodevelopmental effects of chlorpyrifos. Crit Rev Toxicol 41(10):822–903. doi: 10.3109/10408444.2011.616877 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Robbins J, Rall JE (1979) The iodine containing hormones. In: Gray CH, James YHT (eds) Hormones in blood, 3rd edn. Academic Press, London, p 576Google Scholar
  57. Rochester JR, Bolden AL (2015) Bisphenol S and F: a systematic review and comparison of the hormonal activity of bisphenol A substitutes. Environ Health Perspect 123:643–650. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1408989 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Rooney A et al (2014) Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect 122:711–718. doi: 10.1289/ehp.1307972 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Roth N, Wilks M (2014) Neurodevelopmental and neurobehavioural effects of polybrominated and perfluorinated chemicals: a systematic review of the epidemiological literature using a quality assessment scheme. Toxicol Lett 230(2):271–281. doi: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.02.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Runkle D, Frankel M (2012) Advocacy in science: summary of a workshop convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Washington, DC.
  61. Schalock R et al (2010) Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (11th Edition) association on intellectual and developmental disabilities. ISBN: 978-1-935304-04-3Google Scholar
  62. Schreiber et al (2010) Polybrominated diphenyl ethers induce developmental neurotoxicity in a human in vitro model: evidence for endocrine disruption. Environ Health Perspect 118:572–578. doi: 10.1289/ehp.0901435 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Stapleton HM et al (2009) Detection of organophosphate flame retardants in furniture foam and US house dust. Environ Sci Technol 43(19):7490–7495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. Staskal et al (2006) Toxicokinetics of polybrominated diphenyl ether congeners 47, 99, 100, and 153 in mice. Tox Sci 94(1):28–37. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/kfl091 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Sumner P et al (2014) The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. Br Med J. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7015 Google Scholar
  66. Swenberg et al (1992) Species-specific mechanisms of carcinogenesis in: mechanisms of carcinogenesis in risk identification. Edited by H. Vainio. Lyon, Internat. Agency for Research on Cancer, pp 477–500Google Scholar
  67. Teuten EL et al (2005) Two abundant bioaccumulated halogenated compounds are natural products. Science 307:917–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Trasande L et al (2015) Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 100(4):1245–1255. doi: 10.1210/jc.2014-4324 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. Trasande L et al (2016) Burden of disease and costs of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals in the European Union: an updated analysis. Andrology 4(4):565–572. doi: 10.1111/andr.12178 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. Trasande L, Liu Y (2011) Reducing the staggering costs of environmental disease In children, estimated at $76.6 billion In 2008. Health Aff 30:863–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. US EPA FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel (2016) Minutes No. 2016-01: A set of scientific issues being considered by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding chlorpyrifos: analysis of biomonitoring data April 19–21, 2016Google Scholar
  72. US EPA (2011) Endocrine disruption screening program weight-of-evidence: evaluating results of EDSP tier 1 screening to identify the need for tier 2 testing. OPPT-2010-0877-0021Google Scholar
  73. US FDA (2014) 2014 Updated safety assessment of Bisphenol A (BPA) for use in food contact applications. Memorandum dated June 17, 2014.
  74. US EPA (2015a) Endocrine Disruption Screening Program (EDSP) Tier 1 weight of the evidence evaluation of the potential interaction of chlorpyrifos. Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  75. US EPA (2015b) Endocrine disruptor screening program tier 1 screening determinations and associated data evaluation records. Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  76. US EPA (2016a) Federal advisory committees at US EPA., Accessed on 2 Nov 2016
  77. US EPA (2016b) The Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act.
  78. US EPA (2017) Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Overview.
  79. Vandenberg L et al (2016) A Proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Environ Health 15:74–93. doi: 10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Vergano D (2015) Poll reveals rift between scientists, regular folks. National Geographic. 29 Jan 2015Google Scholar
  81. WHO Regional Office for Europe (2015). Human biomonitoring: facts and figures. CopenhagenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Manitou View Consulting, LLCNorthportUSA
  2. 2.Human and Environmental ToxicologyUniversity of KonstanzConstanceGermany

Personalised recommendations