Chemicals are incorporated into a vast number of consumer products, and it has been recognized that considerable exposures of humans and the environment to chemicals are due to diffuse emissions from everyday products. Different approaches to the management of risks concerning chemicals in products are discussed on the international arena, but no general strategy has yet been adopted. The aim of this study is to investigate how health and environmental risks associated with chemicals in consumer products are currently managed in European Union legislations, mainly by the Toys Directive, the RoHS Directive, and REACH. Significant differences were found between the risk reduction strategies in these legislations, including substance prioritization, type of restrictions and requirements, and information dissemination to consumers. REACH regulates chemicals in products to a limited extent, and via quite complicated processes. Product-specific rules are therefore useful supplements to REACH for regulating chemicals in products. The combined effects of the RoHS and WEEE directives seem to be effective in promoting substitution of substances identified as problematic in electrical and electronic equipment, and it is recommended that the possibility to develop similar systems should be considered also for other product categories.

It is widely acknowledged that the management of risks associated with chemicals in articles needs to be improved. The EU environmental policy states that environmental damage should be rectified at source. It is therefore motivated that the risk management of substances in articles also takes particular consideration to those substances identified as posing a risk in different environmental compartments. The primary aim of the present study was to empirically analyze to what extent the regulation of chemicals in articles under REACH is coherent with the rules concerning chemicals in the Sewage Sludge Directive (SSD) and the Water Framework Directive (WFD). We also analyzed the chemical variation of the organic substances regulated under these legislations in relation to the most heavily used chemicals. The results show that 16 of 24 substances used in or potentially present in articles and regulated by the SSD or the WFD are also identified under REACH either as a substance of very high concern (SVHC) or subject to some restrictions. However, for these substances we conclude that there is limited coherence between the legislations, since the identification as an SVHC does not in itself encompass any use restrictions, and the restrictions in REACH are in many cases limited to a particular use, and thus all other uses are allowed. Only a minor part of chemicals in commerce is regulated and these show a chemical variation that deviates from classical legacy pollutants. This warrants new tools to identify potentially hazardous chemicals in articles. We also noted that chemicals monitored in the environment under the WFD deviate in their chemistry from the ones regulated by REACH. In summary, we argue that to obtain improved resource efficiency and a sustainable development it is necessary to minimize the input of chemicals identified as hazardous to health or the environment into articles.

To improve data availability in health risk assessment of chemicals and fill information gaps there is a need to facilitate the use of non-standard toxicity studies, i.e. studies not conducted according to any standardized toxicity test guidelines. The purpose of this work was to propose criteria and guidance for the evaluation of reliability and relevance of non-standard in vivo studies, which could be used to facilitate systematic and transparent evaluation of such studies for health risk assessment. Another aim was to propose user friendly guidance for reporting of non-standard studies intended to promote an improvement in reporting of studies that could be of use in risk assessment. Requirements and recommendations for the design and execution of in vivo toxicity studies were identified from The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) test guidelines, and served as basis for the data evaluation criteria and reporting guidelines. Feedback was also collected from experts within the field of toxicity testing and risk assessment and used to construct a two-tiered framework for study evaluation, as well as refine the reporting guidelines. The proposed framework emphasizes the importance of study relevance and an important aspect is to not completely dismiss studies from health risk assessment based on very strict criteria for reliability. The suggested reporting guidelines provide researchers with a tool to fulfill reporting requirements as stated by regulatory agencies. Together, these resources provide an approach to include all relevant data that may fill information gaps and reduce scientific uncertainty in health risk assessment conclusions, and subsequently also in chemical policy decisions.

Background: Effects on the developing mammary gland have been repeatedly investigated and reported for bisphenol A (BPA) in experimental animals at doses close to or within human exposure range, and highlighted as being of potential concern to human health.

Objective: The present study provides a characterization of in vivo effects of BPA on the developing mammary gland in relation to the temporary tolerable daily intake (t-TDI), recently established by EFSA. The mammary gland data set was also used to explore the combined use of two different web-based tools for identifying sensitive and reliable data for risk assessment purposes.

Methods: The Health Assessment Workspace Collaborative (HAWC) was used for characterizing the mammary gland data in terms of type of effects investigated and reported and the distribution of these effects within the low dose range. The reliability of the mammary gland studies was evaluated using the Science in Risk Assessment and Policy (SciRAP) criteria. The results from HAWC and SciRAP were then combined to investigate whether there would be a shift in the type of effects reported and/or their distribution in the dose interval when considering only the studies judged as most reliable.

Results: No clear relationship could be identified between the reliability of the studies as assessed according to the SciRAP criteria and the type of mammary gland effects reported or their distribution within the low dose range, respectively.

Conclusions: The combined use of the HAWC and SciRAP tools would comprise a useful methodology for identifying reliable and sensitive information from in vivo toxicity studies of relevance to consider in the regulatory risk assessment process.