• Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: not found

Research needs for the risk assessment of health and environmental effects of endocrine disruptors: a report of the U.S. EPA-sponsored workshop.

Read this article at

      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


      The hypothesis has been put forward that humans and wildlife species adverse suffered adverse health effects after exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Reported adverse effects include declines in populations, increases in cancers, and reduced reproductive function. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sponsored a workshop in April 1995 to bring together interested parties in an effort to identify research gaps related to this hypothesis and to establish priorities for future research activities. Approximately 90 invited participants were organized into work groups developed around the principal reported health effects-carcinogenesis, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, and immunotoxicity-as well as along the risk assessment paradigm-hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. Attention focused on both ecological and human health effects. In general, group felt that the hypothesis warranted a concerted research effort to evaluate its validity and that research should focus primarily on effects on development of reproductive capability, on improved exposure assessment, and on the effects of mixtures. This report summarizes the discussions of the work groups and details the recommendations for additional research.

      Related collections

      Author and article information

      National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
      Environ Health Perspect
      Environmental Health Perspectives
      August 1996
      : 104
      : Suppl 4
      : 715-740
      Research Article

      Public health


      Comment on this article