global transport and production, fumigants, containers, chemicals, glyphosate

Selected publications related to global transport and production, fumigants, containers, chemicals, glyphosate by Prof. Dr. med. Xaver Baur:

view publications...

Questionnaire fumigants, chemicals

2.3 Anthropogenic emission sources Prev Chapter 2. Emission of air pollutant

See also website of IJPC-SE

Further information on pollution and glyphosate:

The Agricultural Health Study

Glyphosate Use and Cancer Incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Andreotti et al.,

The Agricultural Health Study (AHS) is a ongoing  prospective cohort of licensed pesticide applicators enrolled in Iowa or North Carolina, Note that the authors do not provide data on expose (no human biomonitoring no ambient monitoring data is collected within the study). The pesticide use data is based on a follow-up questionnaire that was administered five years after enrollment and completed by 63% of the participants. In the recent data update the authors could not observe a  associations between glyphosate use and overall cancer risk or  total lymphohematopoietic cancers, including NHL and multiple myeloma. However, there was evidence of an increased risk of AML (acute myeloid leukemia) for applicators, particularly in the highest category of glyphosate exposure compared with never users of glyphosate. The authors  truncated cancer incidence follow-up in 2005 to be concurrent with the last exposure information. Based on 26 exposed cases,there was an increased risk of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) compared with never users (RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 0.94 to 6.32, Ptrend = .11), though this association was not statistically significant. Expeditious efforts to replicate these findings are warranted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Expert opinion on adherence to the rules of good scientific practice in the subsections “B.6.4.8 Published data (released since 2000)”, “B.6.5.3 Published data on carcinogenicity (released since 2000)” and “B.6.6.12 Published data (released since 2000)” in the report “Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report. Risk assessment […] for the active substance GLYPHOSATE […]”,  October 2015, 4322 pages

by Dr. Stefan Weber

Expert opinion on Glyphosate Task force report

“The expert’s task was to compare the three subsections B.6.4.8, B.6.5.3 and B.6.6.12 of the report “Final addendum to the Renewal Assessment Report. Risk assessment […] for the active substance GLYPHOSATE […]”, October 2015, 4322 pages (hereafter: report) with document M in annex II, section 3, point 5: “Toxicological and toxicokinetic studies” of the license application “Glyphosate & the IPA-, K-, NH4- und DMA salts of glyphosate […] Application for Renewal of Approval […]” by the ‘Glyphosate Task Force’ (author reference: “Monsanto Europe S.A. on behalf of the ‘Glyphosate Task Force’”), May 2012, Belgium, 1027 pages (hereafter: application) for text concordances.”

Summary: “It is absolutely correct to call this plagiarism in the sense of scientific misconduct because the presumed author, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), is committed to the same principles of good scientific practice as universities, and defines the concept of plagiarism in the same way. The systematic omission of 1) indications and 2) source references over several pages can only be interpreted as deliberately concealing the origin of the text in the sense of conditional intent. Formal errors must be excluded…… All in all, the writers of the report must be accused of significant scientific misconduct and of fulfilling all the definitional criteria of text plagiarism in the sense of conscious deception about the true authorship.”

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An academic researcher's guide to increased impact on regulatory assessment of chemicals by Marlene Ågerstrand, Anna Sobek,  Karl Lilja,  Maria Linderoth,  Lina Wendt-Rasch,  Ann-Sofie Wernerssond  and  Christina Rudéna This work deals with the many factors deciding a research study's regulatory use. According to several EU chemical legislations, all available and relevant studies can be used in hazard and risk assessment of chemicals. However, in practice, standard tests conducted under GLP and sponsored and provided by industry are predominantly used. Peer-reviewed studies from independent sources are often disregarded or disputed since they often do not comply with regulatory data requirements and quality criteria. Shortcomings in regulatory assessment of chemicals

Transparency of chemical risk assessment data under REACH by Ingre-Khans E, Ågerstrand M, Beronius A, Rudén C The authors mention that conclusions on hazard and risk are influenced by expert judgements as well as potential conflict of interests. The REACH regulation requires EU manufacturers and importers of substances to register information on the hazard and risk of their substances with the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). The transparency of information on the hazard and risk of substances was found to be limited for several reasons. First, certain information was removed due to confidentiality and certain fields were not published because they could contain confidential information although the information had not been claimed confidential. Also, the extent to which registrants reported information varied, and the presentation of some data and certain terminology required further clarification. In addition, the data source for the majority of the key and supporting studies could not be identified due to confidentiality. Since registrants are only required to summarise studies, it cannot be verified whether all relevant information from non-public industry reports have been reported. Lastly, certain information related to the hazard and risk assessment were only reported in the CSR which is only available upon request; a time-consuming and work-intensive process. As information on registered chemicals is currently provided to the public, it is difficult to follow steps that are undertaken in the hazard and risk assessment.REACH: limited transparencies and corporate influences