We have responded to a consultation by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on the EU Commission’s proposed criteria for identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals. These comments reiterate much of what we said in a letter to the EU Health Commissioner which we recently co-authored, and our response to the EU’s public consultation on their […]
As part of its strategy to become a leading publisher of evidence syntheses and methods papers in the field of environmental health, the journal Environment International has developed a new set of standards and operating procedures for publication of systematic reviews.* These are detailed in an editorial “Raising the standard of systematic reviews published in Environment International“. In […]
We are contributing authors to a new publication which, we hope, presents a coherent framework for using existing evidence to classify chemicals as EDCs. The devil will be in the detail, of course, but one of the major contributions the paper makes is its clear and structured guidance for weighing evidence (or as we prefer to call […]
We are among a group of scientists investigating how to make best use of the best evidence to identify and classify endocrine disruptors, who have written to EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis in order to voice our concerns about the proposed criteria for identification and regulation of EDCs under the PPP and Biocides Regulations. We are concerned […]
Our Special Issue on systematic review methods for chemical risk assessment, which we have been guest editing, has been published. .
Systematic review methods can be used for developing threshold no significant risk level (NSRL) values for titanium dioxide, according to a new paper published in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Read the paper here: doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2016.05.031 Paper highlights TiO2 particles of respirable size are listed as carcinogenic under Proposition 65. A systematic review identified only animal studies were […]
This is a new paper we have published (with the invaluable contributions of a small army of co-authors) about how systematic review methods have potential to make the chemical risk assessment process more transparent and scientifically robust. You will see a diverse spectrum of contributors which (I will take the liberty of interpreting) amounts to […]
This is a table from Late Lessons From Early Warnings Vol. 2 (European Environment Agency 2013), summarising the main direction of error from methodological weaknesses in research. This is important: when assessing the methodological quality of studies in the course of conducting an evidence review in a risk assessment, it is not enough […]
Paul Whaley is presenting the poster below, outlining the new PFS Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit, intended to aid evaluation of the methodological quality of literature reviews conducted for the purpose of better understanding health risks posed by chemicals. (Click to enlarge.) See you at Eurotox!
Click here to download the PDF. And click here to download our worked analysis of EFSA’s 2014 Draft Opinion.