Today, May 20, 2026, HEJSupport participated in the PHI-IWG meeting, the informal working group on potential hazard Issues and their presentation in GHS. This group is coordinated by the European Union and works under the auspices of the UN Sub-Committee of Experts on the GHS (SCEGHS).
Endocrine disruptors (EDs), a potential new hazard class under the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) for classification and labelling of chemicals, was the first topic on the agenda. The ED workstream is led by the Netherlands.
The European Union and the United States are currently conducting pilot studies and a “counter analysis” as part of the PHI-IWG 2025–2026 work plan to supplement earlier OECD work and examine whether existing GHS hazard classes sufficiently capture endocrine-disrupting properties or whether gaps may exist in the current system. The Netherlands explained the ongoing EU process for selecting a representative subset of substances from a larger dataset of more than 600 substances previously analyzed in the context of endocrine disruptor criteria development. The aim is to provide a manageable but representative subset of substances for the comparative analysis with the United States.
The pilot studies and counter analysis are expected to inform future discussions within the PHI-IWG on possible recommendations to the GHS Sub-Committee on how endocrine disruptors could be addressed under the GHS framework.
According to the discussion, the selection criteria focus mainly on human health-related endocrine effects, the availability of robust scientific data, the diversity of uses and modes of action, and the inclusion of substances from different sectors such as biocides, pesticides, and consumer products. The Netherlands also explained that, where possible, the exercise attempts to avoid overrepresentation of substances already classified under severe existing GHS hazard categories, such as carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, reproductive toxicity (CMR), or specific target organ toxicity (STOT), while repeatedly clarifying that such substances are not fully excluded from the analysis.
Several participants, including representatives from the United States, ICCA and Canada, raised questions regarding the substance selection methodology. Comments included the importance of including CMR/STOT substances where relevant, consideration of additional data points regarding existing classifications, and ensuring that the selected subset remains representative for the broader analysis. Participants also noted that endocrine disruption can contribute to reproductive and organ toxicity effects. This aligns with what we heard from Health Canada during our online meeting.
The discussion further addressed practical and procedural aspects of the work. Participants debated whether substances currently under assessment by ECHA’s Risk Assessment Committee (RAC) could provide useful additional information for the exercise. Suggestions included considering finalized RAC experiences and assessments as part of the broader analysis, while others noted that ongoing RAC cases may not yet yield finalized regulatory conclusions.
ECHA is also supporting the exercise through additional work on candidate substances. The EU and US experts aim to exchange candidate substance lists later this year and continue the counter analysis before reporting back to the broader PHI-IWG. According to the discussion, if the analysis identifies a potential gap within the current GHS framework, an informal document outlining possible future work for the 2027–2028 biennium could be submitted to the GHS Sub-Committee by the end of the year.
The meeting concluded that the process remains in the early “gap analysis” stage. Participants broadly agreed on the need for a scientifically robust and representative evaluation, while discussions continue on methodology, substance selection, sector coverage, and the practical application of endocrine disruptor criteria across regulatory systems.
