In a recent peer-reviewed opinion piece published in Frontiers in Toxicology, researchers Maricel Maffini and Laura Vandenberg argue that while scientific advancements in toxicology have surged forward, regulatory frameworks in the United States have not kept pace. The authors argue that this disconnect between science and regulation could have dire consequences for public health, particularly in how the risks of synthetic chemicals like endocrine disruptors and persistent chemicals are managed.
Maffini and Vandenberg highlight that “current hazard identification approaches” overseen by agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency, “rely on outdated principles and expectations. For example, common testing approaches assume that chemicals are quickly eliminated from the body, something that many PFAS and other persistent organic pollutants have disproven.”
Other assumptions in hazard testing that they argue are erroneous include “that testing chemicals one at a time is appropriate to understand how chemicals act under real-world conditions”, and that “testing on adult animals (or in cultured cells) has been proven to predict effects on developing animals”. Other research backs up their claims (FPF reported).
These assumptions and others in the current regulatory hazard testing regime fail to capture the full range of health impacts associated with modern chemical exposures. They argue that “long-held assumptions… should be complemented—if not completely replaced—with modern scientific principles of toxicology including mixture toxicology, endocrinology, physiology, and immunology.”
The authors call for an urgent modernization of risk management systems, advocating for “nimbler” testing “to account for the growth in knowledge of these fields over the last three decades and the new knowledge that is yet to come as well as the complexity of chemical exposures and new chemistries.” They caution that without such updates, the public remains vulnerable to the subtle yet significant effects of chemical exposures that the current testing regime may overlook.
The article urges “periodic reassessment” to bridge the gap between evolving scientific insights and regulatory practices to ensure that public health is adequately safeguarded in the face of new and emerging chemical risks. “The problems we describe here illustrate a common paradox in US regulatory agencies: they are mandated to make safety decisions based on science that is constantly evolving while the risk management is commonly static.”
Reference
Maricel, M. and Vandenberg, L. (2024). “Science evolves but outdated testing and static risk management in the US delay protection to human health.” Frontiers in Toxicology. DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2024.1444024