| 1. |
- Grandjean, Philippe, et al.
(författare)
-
The faroes statement : human health effects of developmental exposure to chemicals in our environment.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. - : Wiley. - 1742-7835 .- 1742-7843. ; 102:2, s. 73-5
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The periods of embryonic, foetal and infant developmentare remarkably susceptible to environmental hazards. Toxicexposures to chemical pollutants during these windows ofincreased susceptibility can cause disease and disability ininfants, children and across the entire span of human life.Among the effects of toxic exposures recognized in the pasthave been spontaneous abortion, congenital malformations,lowered birthweight and other adverse effects. These outcomesmay be readily apparent. However, even subtle changes causedby chemical exposures during early development may leadto important functional deficits and increased risks ofdisease later in life. The timing of exposure during early lifehas therefore become a crucial factor to be considered intoxicological assessments.During 20–24 May 2007, researchers in the fields of environmentalhealth, environmental chemistry, developmentalbiology, toxicology, epidemiology, nutrition and paediatricsgathered at the International Conference on Fetal Programmingand Developmental Toxicity, in Tórshavn, FaroeIslands. The conference goal was to highlight new insightsinto the effects of prenatal and early postnatal exposure tochemical agents, and their sustained effects on the individualthroughout the lifespan. The conference brought togetherresearchers to focus on human data and the translationof laboratory results to elucidate the environmental risks tohuman health.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pearce, Neil E, et al.
(författare)
-
IARC Monographs : 40 Years of Evaluating Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Journal of Environmental Health Perspectives. - : Environmental Health Perspectives. - 0091-6765 .- 1552-9924. ; 123:6, s. 507-514
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Recently the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Programme for the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans has been criticized for several of its evaluations, and also the approach used to perform these evaluations. Some critics have claimed that IARC Working Groups' failures to recognize study weaknesses and biases of Working Group members have led to inappropriate classification of a number of agents as carcinogenic to humans.OBJECTIVES: The authors of this paper are scientists from various disciplines relevant to the identification and hazard evaluation of human carcinogens. We have examined here criticisms of the IARC classification process to determine the validity of these concerns. We review the history of IARC evaluations and describe how the IARC evaluations are performed.DISCUSSION: We conclude that these recent criticisms are unconvincing. The procedures employed by IARC to assemble Working Groups of scientists from the various discipline and the techniques followed to review the literature and perform hazard assessment of various agents provide a balanced evaluation and an appropriate indication of the weight of the evidence. Some disagreement by individual scientists to some evaluations is not evidence of process failure. The review process has been modified over time and will undoubtedly be altered in the future to improve the process. Any process can in theory be improved, and we would support continued review and improvement of the IARC processes. This does not mean, however, that the current procedures are flawed.CONCLUSIONS: The IARC Monographs have made, and continue to make, major contributions to the scientific underpinning for societal actions to improve the public's health.
|
|
