For question one, are perceived risks proportional to actual risks, the group pointed out that this depends on who you ask. We need the perspective of true knowledge to have the answer to this question – we don’t know the ‘actual risks’. Despite these questions, the group agreed that perceived risks are higher than actual risks. They pointed out that current EU regulations give disproportional attention to endocrine disrupters when there is no scientific basis for treating endocrine disruption differently from any other toxicological mechanism and no proof of causality for any currently registered pesticide and an endocrine-related effect. For the second

question, the group noted that there are different efforts currently dedicated to endocrine disruption: a scientific effort, a regulatory effort and a risk phosphatase inhibitor library assessment

effort. The scientific effort was viewed as proportional to the real health risk as there is a need to elucidate the real risk of endocrine disruption and the risk from endocrine-active pesticides versus the risk from other sources of endocrine disrupters. The regulatory effort applied to endocrine disrupter exposure was viewed as much greater than the real health risk. It was noted that other health problems, i.e., obesity, receive much less regulatory attention despite the general acknowledgement of severe health risks. In risk communication, selleck the effort was again seen as greater than the risk with the comment that detection and contamination are not the same. With current methodologies, detection of endocrine-active pesticide residues may be possible even for minute quantities, this does not necessarily imply that the food is contaminated and unsafe. A final point made by this group concerned the need for integrated risk–benefit analysis when considering endocrine disrupting properties of pesticides. The benefits of pesticide use in health e.g., combating mycotoxins and supply e.g., food security and food prices, must be considered against the risks of exposure to endocrine-active

substances in pesticide products. At this workshop, endocrine experts from different sectors presented and discussed some of the most recent scientific findings, possible frameworks for interpretation and potential Dipeptidyl peptidase regulatory outcomes of dietary exposure to endocrine active pesticides. Diverse opinions were presented by a broad and opposing range of stakeholders and the workshop was considered scientifically sound. Lively discussion among the NGO representatives, industry scientists and government regulators allowed accusations to be made and for the accused to defend themselves. The progress was the acceptance that we must work together to find the appropriate solutions. There was a general consensus for example, that more research and more focused research is necessary in order to make scientifically-based decisions on the regulation of endocrine-active compounds.