EDC exposure ‘costs EU €157bn annually’
Researchers concluded that infertility and male reproductive dysfunctions, birth defects, obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and neurobehavioral and learning disorders were among conditions than can be attributed in part to exposure to EDCs.
They said the €157bn estimate is conservative, and represents 1.23% of Europe’s gross domestic product (GDP). The costs may actually be as high as €270bn or 2% of GDP.
EDCs include bisphenol A (BPA) found in food can linings, certain phthalates found in plastic products and cosmetics, flame retardants and pesticides such as chlorpyrifos.
The authors presented the findings at ENDO 2015, the Endocrine Society’s 97th Annual Meeting & Expo, in Brussels, Belgium.
It is not the first time a value has been attempted to be put on EDCs in the EU, as last year the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) said exposure may be costing up to €31bn per year.
Assessing the economic burden
To assess the economic burden of EDC exposure, existing environmental health cost models were adapted relying on the Institute of Medicine’s 1981 approach of assessing the contribution of environment factors in causing illness, to calculate the estimated cost burden.
The analysis included direct costs of hospital stays, physician services, nursing home care and other medical costs.
They also calculated estimates of indirect costs such as lost worker productivity, early death and disability.
Adult obesity linked to phthalate exposure generated the second-highest total, with estimated costs of €15.6bn a year.
Philippe Grandjean, Professor of Environmental Medicine at the University of Southern Denmark, said findings show limiting exposure is likely to yield significant economic benefits.
“This approach has the potential to inform decision-making in the environmental health arena,” said Grandjean, also an Adjunct Professor at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
“We are hoping to bring the latest endocrine science to the attention of policymakers as they weigh how to regulate these toxic chemicals.”
A consultation to help define criteria for endocrine disruptors was completed by the European Commission and some responses were published.
EU-legislation on biocidal products and plant protection products requires the Commission to "specify scientific criteria for the determination of endocrine-disrupting properties" of chemical substances.
A feedback report will be issued once replies are assessed – it is unclear when this will be.
Informed speculation
Professor Richard Sharpe, group leader of Male Reproductive Health Research Team at the University of Edinburgh, said he could see the appeal of turning uncertainties into something digestible by politicians and funders but it does not sit well with him.
“I do agree with the authors in making a case for more funding of research in this area because irrespective of outcome it can only help (either by firming up the evidence for EDCs that can promote action or by exonerating EDCs and thus refocussing attention in other directions).
“However, what worries me about this approach is…these highly presumptive estimations inevitably become viewed and presented as being far more solid than they actually are, especially when taken out of context further down the line.”
Sharpe said he is worried when a suspect is vilified and stitched up with circumstantial evidence.
“If looked at from the other direction, the lack of convincing evidence for a role of even persistent (and now banned) EDCs as a major cause of human disease is an aspect that never gets equal attention, although I understand all of the arguments regarding how difficult it is to obtain definitive cause-effect data for humans.
“Most of the content of these publications is interpretation and informed speculation, and none of us should lose sight of this.”
For a list of the studies involved in the analysis click here.
