For a world free of hazardous chemicals

A catalyst for change

ChemSec - bridging the gap between regulators, business, investors, NGOs and science

Read more...

Take a look at the bigger picture

Chemical regulation is economically beneficial for many companies

A new publication by NGO ChemSec shows how chemical regulation creates opportunities for many progressive companies...

Read more...

ChemSec launch the Textile Guide

ChemSec launch the Textile Guide - A new tool to tackle chemicals in textiles

Up until now brand owners and other companies in the textile sector had to invest a lot of money in chemical expertise in order to produce toxic...

Read more...

A well-functioning authorisation process drives innovation

The authorisation process

Find the latest updates for ChemSec's authorisation work

Read more...

SINimilarity gets an extensive update

Free of charge chemistry tool empowers non-chemists

Non-profit ChemSec today reveals the updated SINimilarity tool.

The tool gives non-experts vital chemical...

Read more...

What´s your chemical footprint?

What´s your chemical footprint?

Nowadays it's common business practice to know and publish the corporate carbon footprint. And the "What you measure – you can manage" approach...

Read more...

Scientists: "The potency concept is not relevant for identification of EDCs”

There is enough scientific consensus to regulate EDCs and the delay of the criteria cannot be justified by scientific uncertainty. This is the opinion of leading endocronologists Andreas Kortenkamp, Thomas Zoeller and others, in a just published scientific article, which discusses the EDC criteria to be set in the EU.

The paper carefully discusses the four different proposed criteria options as well as the relevance of the on-going impact assessment, which the authors strongly criticise:

“Making a scientific definition dependent on the results of an impact assessment would be a dangerous precedent for public health and science in general.”

Additionally, the article explains why potency is not relevant for hazard identification in general. There are several reasons for this, including that potency must be established endpoint by endpoint, and that it must consider relevant exposure data. The scientists also argue that potency is not used to identify other hazardous chemicals, such as carcinogens or reprotoxic chemicals.

Very much in line with this, ChemSec recently published a position paper explaining why potency cut-offs should not be part of criteria for identification of EDCs.