Protecting the Cancer Susceptibility Curve. Why might the U.S. EPA and its stakeholders be spending so much effort refining allometric scaling procedures, dialing back the estimation of exposure to the maximally exposed individual, and positing sophisticated nonlinear modes of action, while continuing to make the unscientific assertion that we are all equally susceptible to carcinogenesis? I observe that the first three improvements tend to result in lower estimated risk and less environmental protection, whereas shining a light on human variation in cancer susceptibility would tend to have the opposite effect on risk estimates.
Five years REACH: lessons learned and first experiences – an industry view. Studies show that the new extended safety data sheets under REACH are seen as overly comprehensive and unintelligible, both by those compiling them and by users. Therefore, forthcoming activities need to aim at simplifying the procedure and making it manageable also for smaller enterprises.
Government bee scientist behind controversial study joins pesticide firm. A key government scientist whose research was used by ministers to argue against a ban on pesticides thought to harm bees is to join Syngenta, the chemical giant which manufactures one of the insecticides.
Scientifically unfounded precaution drives European Commission’s recommendations on EDC regulation, while defying common sense, well-established science and risk assessment principles. An astonishing attack from editors of toxicology journals, in which the current EU draft regulatory framework for EDCs is described as being assembled in “virtually complete ignorance of all well‐established and taught principles of pharmacology and toxicology”.
Toxicologists enter the fray on endocrine disruptors. About the toxicology journal editors’ letter, Thomas Zoeller, a biologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, US, says: “Many chronic diseases certainly have plausible endocrine underpinnings. It’s not absolute proof – but the evidence is certainly there to be cautious.” He says the letter’s authors “are concerned about their discipline, and concerned about unwarranted regulations, but they don’t seem to be concerned about public health”.
Which “Precautionary Principle” are you talking about? There are three. One understood as a measured approach to innovation; one deployed to block trade; one erected as a sort of Luddite barrier to progress.
A lawsuit filed against two labs founded by UT-Austin professor raises questions of conflict of interest and academic freedom. On its face, Eastman Chemical’s lawsuit against two small Texas labs that have said its plastics may be unsafe for consumption looks like a David and Goliath kind of fight. But the case is also more nuanced, with both sides potentially having a financial stake in the outcome. And it is another example of judiciary and regulators being pushed to decide which research should be allowed to be used in making statements about a chemical’s safety.