Risk to all or none? A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A

• Published in: Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2010-04, Vol.29 (2), p.132-146
• Main Authors: BERONIUS, Anna, RUDEN, Christina, HAKANSSON, Helen, HANBERG, Annika
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: androgen; Animals; Assessment factor; Benzhydryl Compounds; Biologi; Biological and medical sciences; Biology; Bisphenol A; Chemical and industrial products toxicology. Toxic occupational diseases; Data evaluation; Data interpretation; Databases, Bibliographic; developmental; Dose-Response Relationship, Drug; Embryology: invertebrates and vertebrates. Teratology; Endocrine disruptor; Endocrine Disruptors - toxicity; endocrine-disrupting chemicals; Environmental Exposure - adverse effects; Environmental Exposure - statistics & numerical data; estrogenic chemicals; exposure; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Global Health; Humans; Low-dose effect; Male; mechanisms; Medical sciences; Medicin och hälsovetenskap; Mice; NATURAL SCIENCES; NATURVETENSKAP; No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level; Phenols - toxicity; prostate; Public Policy; Rats; Reproducibility of Results; reproductive toxicity; Research Design; Risk assessment; Risk Assessment - methods; Risk Assessment - statistics & numerical data; Sex Factors; statement; Teratology. Teratogens; Toxicology; Various organic compounds
• ISSN: 0890-6238; 1873-1708; 1873-1708
• DOI: 10.1016/j.reprotox.2009.11.007

Bisphenol A (BPA) is an endocrine disruptor for which health risk assessment has proven controversial. Conclusions regarding health risks of BPA vary between assessments from "there is no risk to any part of the population" to "there is risk to the entire population". We have carried out a literature study investigating what might be the scientific and/or policy-related reasons for these differences. Ten risk assessments for BPA were scrutinized and several factors were compared between assessments, including estimations of exposure levels, identification of critical study and NOAEL, assessment factors and significance attributed to reports of low-dose effects. Differences in conclusions were mainly influenced by the evaluation of low-dose effects and the uncertainties surrounding the significance of these data for health risk assessment. The results illustrate the impact of differences in risk assessment policy and expert judgment on the risk assessment process and highlight the importance of transparency in this process.