Endocrine disruptor global policy

Over the past several decades, scientific consensus has grown around the concept and evidence for human health impacts from exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). A series of publications have now demonstrated considerable economic costs of EDC exposure-induced adverse health outcomes. This research has suggested economic burdens in the hundreds of billions, even considering only a small subset of EDCs and health. As of yet, regulatory efforts and policies to protect and decrease human exposure to most EDCs have been insufficient and have not kept pace with the science. Given the overwhelming scientific evidence, referenced throughout this collection, as well as the economic costs of inaction, described here, regulations are clearly needed. The EU and some other countries have taken promising steps towards protective regulation of EDCs, though the response of the US and many other countries has been limited or altogether lacking. Regulatory bodies that have and continue to apply risk-based approaches to regulating EDCs have also failed to consider the complete economic impacts of EDC-related health impacts. In this chapter, we will discuss broad strategies taken to regulate EDCs, examine the approaches currently taken to regulate EDCs in a global context (discussing the strengths and weaknesses of these regulations), discuss the economic costs of EDC exposures (detailing where consideration of health and economic costs could improve regulations), and discuss next steps and novel approaches to adapting existing regulatory frameworks to this class of chemicals.

Leaving Hospital: A Step too Far for Risk-Based Regulation?

Discharges from hospital are internationally recognised as a dangerous time in the care pathway of a patient, posing a risk to both their physical wellbeing and dignity. This article examines the effectiveness of risk-based regulation as a tool to address patient safety incidents linked to the hospital discharge process within the English National Health Service. It examines how the risk of this process is identified, conceptualised, and prioritised amongst the relevant statutory regulators, and argues that the risk is neither uniformly recognised by the statutory regulators within the English NHS, nor sufficiently addressed. Professional regulators in particular appear to have a poor awareness of the risk and their role in addressing it. Until these issues are resolved, patients leaving hospitals will continue to be exposed to patient safety incidents which should be avoidable.