| 1. |
- Bergman, Åke, et al.
(författare)
-
Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed : a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Environmental Health. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1476-069X. ; 12
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors regarding proposed European Union endocrine disrupter regulations ignores scientific evidence and well-established principles of chemical risk assessment. In this commentary, endocrine disrupter experts express their concerns about a recently published, and is in our considered opinion inaccurate and factually incorrect, editorial that has appeared in several journals in toxicology. Some of the shortcomings of the editorial are discussed in detail. We call for a better founded scientific debate which may help to overcome a polarisation of views detrimental to reaching a consensus about scientific foundations for endocrine disrupter regulation in the EU.
|
|
| 2. |
- Mundaca, Luis, et al.
(författare)
-
Behavioural economics for energy and climate change policies and the transition to a sustainable energy use — A Scandinavian perspective
- 2019. - 1st
-
Ingår i: Energy and Behaviour : Towards a Low Carbon Future - Towards a Low Carbon Future. - 9780128185674 ; , s. 45-87
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The Scandinavian region has been at the forefront of energy and environmental policies for decades. While significant effort has been devoted to the supply side and development of technology markets, our study questions the extent to which policy efforts have effectively and explicitly addressed behavioural factors affecting the adoption and the use of low-carbon energy technologies at the individual and household level. Building upon behavioural economics, we explore behavioural factors and the role of economic and noneconomic aspects affecting energy use and decarbonisation activities in the region. Overall, we argue that greater attention needs to be given to behavioural issues in policy design, implementation, and evaluation. At the same time, behavioural interventions are unlikely to be a panacea that can steer sustainable energy use by itself, and both price and nonprice interventions are required. We conclude that a more stringent, integrated behavioural and technological policymaking approach is needed.
|
|
| 3. |
- vom Saal, Frederick S., et al.
(författare)
-
The Conflict between Regulatory Agencies over the 20,000-Fold Lowering of the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) for Bisphenol A (BPA) by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
- 2024
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 132:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommended lowering their estimated tolerable daily intake (TDI) for bisphenol A (BPA) 20,000-fold to 0.2 ng/kg body weight (BW)/day. BPA is an extensively studied high production volume endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) associated with a vast array of diseases. Prior risk assessments of BPA by EFSA as well as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have relied on industry-funded studies conducted under good laboratory practice protocols (GLP) requiring guideline end points and detailed record keeping, while also claiming to examine (but rejecting) thousands of published findings by academic scientists. Guideline protocols initially formalized in the mid-twentieth century are still used by many regulatory agencies. EFSA used a 21st century approach in its reassessment of BPA and conducted a transparent, but time-limited, systematic review that included both guideline and academic research. The German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) opposed EFSA’s revision of the TDI for BPA.Objectives: We identify the flaws in the assumptions that the German BfR, as well as the FDA, have used to justify maintaining the TDI for BPA at levels above what a vast amount of academic research shows to cause harm. We argue that regulatory agencies need to incorporate 21st century science into chemical hazard identifications using the CLARITY-BPA (Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity) nonguideline academic studies in a collaborative government–academic program model.Discussion: We strongly endorse EFSA’s revised TDI for BPA and support the European Commission’s (EC) apparent acceptance of this updated BPA risk assessment. We discuss challenges to current chemical risk assessment assumptions about EDCs that need to be addressed by regulatory agencies to, in our opinion, become truly protective of public health. Addressing these challenges will hopefully result in BPA, and eventually other structurally similar bisphenols (called regrettable substitutions) for which there are known adverse effects, being eliminated from all food-related and many other uses in the EU and elsewhere.
|
|
| 4. |
- Zoeller, R. Thomas, 1952-, et al.
(författare)
-
European Medicines Agency Conflicts With the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on Bisphenol A Regulation
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Journal of the Endocrine Society. - : Oxford University Press. - 2472-1972. ; 7:9
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revised their estimate of the toxicity of bisphenol A (BPA) and, as a result, have recommended reducing the tolerable daily intake (TDI) by 20 000-fold. This would essentially ban the use of BPA in food packaging such as can liners, plastic food containers, and in consumer products. To come to this conclusion, EFSA used a systematic approach according to a pre-established protocol and included all guideline and nonguideline studies in their analysis. They found that Th-17 immune cells increased with very low exposure to BPA and used this endpoint to revise the TDI to be human health protective. A number of regulatory agencies including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have written formal disagreements with several elements of EFSA's proposal. The European Commission will now decide whether to accept EFSA's recommendation over the objections of EMA. If the Commission accepts EFSA's recommendation, it will be a landmark action using knowledge acquired through independent scientific studies focused on biomarkers of chronic disease to protect human health. The goal of this Perspective is to clearly articulate the monumental nature of this debate and decision and to explain what is at stake. Our perspective is that the weight of evidence clearly supports EFSA's proposal to reduce the TDI by 20 000-fold.
|
|
