Animal evidence considered in determination of cannabis smoke and Δ9 ‐tetrahydrocannabinol as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint); Part I. Somatic development

Résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Objectives On December 11, 2019, California's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DARTIC) met to consider the addition of cannabis smoke and Δ9‐THC to the Proposition 65 list as causing reproductive toxicity (developmental endpoint). As the lead state agency for implementing Proposition 65, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) reviewed and summarized the relevant scientific literature in the form of a hazard identification document (HID). Here we provide reviews based on the HID: shortened, revised, and reformatted for a larger audience. Methods While the HID included both human and animal data, this set of three reviews will highlight the animal‐derived data pertaining to somatic development (Part I), neurodevelopmental effects (Part II), and proposed neurodevelopmental mechanisms of action (Part III). Results Endogenous cannabinoids (eCBs) and their receptors serve many critical functions in normal development. Δ9‐THC can interfere with these functions. Mechanistic studies employed techniques including: blocking Δ9‐THC binding to endocannabinoid (EC) receptors, inhibiting Δ9‐THC metabolism, and/or using animals expressing knockout mutations of EC receptors. Apical somatic effects of cannabis smoke or Δ9‐THC reported in whole animal studies included decreases in offspring viability and growth. Mechanistic studies discussed in Part I focused on Δ9‐THC effects on early embryos and implantation, immune development, and bone growth. Conclusions In reaching its decision to list cannabis and Δ9‐THC as a developmental toxicant under California's Proposition 65, the DARTIC considered biological plausibility and the consistency of mechanistic information with effects reported in human and whole animal studies.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.