Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Portier, Christopher J.; Armstrong, Bruce K.; Baguley, Bruce C.; Baur, Xaver; Belyaev, Igor; Bellé, Robert; Belpoggi, Fiorella; Biggeri, Annibale; Bosland, Maarten C.; Bruzzi, Paolo; Budnik, Lygia Therese; Bugge, Merete; Burns, Kathleen; Calaf, Gloria M.; Carpenter, David O.; Carpenter, Hillary M.; López‐Carrillo, Lizbeth; Clapp, Richard; Cocco, Pierluigi; Consonni, Dario; Comba, Pietro; Craft, Elena; Dalvie, Mohamed Aqiel; Davis, Devra Lee; Demers, Paul A.; Roos, Anneclaire J. De; DeWitt, Jamie C.; Forastiére, Francesco; Freedman, Jonathan H.; Fritschi, Lin; Gaus, Caroline; Gohlke, Julia M.; Goldberg, Marcel; Greiser, Eberhard; Hansen, Johnni; Hardell, Lennart; Hauptmann, Michael; Huang, Wei; Huff, James; James, Margaret O.; Jameson, C. W.; Kortenkamp, Andreas; Kopp‐Schneider, Annette; Kromhout, Hans; Larramendy, Marcelo L.; Landrigan, Philip J.; Lash, Lawrence H.; Leszczyński, D; Lynch, Charles F.; Magnani, Corrado; Mandrioli, Daniele; Martin, Francis L.; Merler, Enzo; Michelozzi, Paola; Miligi, Lucia; Miller, Anthony B.; Mirabelli, Dario; Mirer, Franklin E.; Naidoo, Saloshni; Perry, Melissa J.; Petronio, Maria Grazia; Pirastu, Roberta; Portier, Ralph J.; Ramos, Kenneth S.; Robertson, Larry W.; Rodriguez, Theresa; Röösli, Martin; Ross, Matt K.; Roy, Deodutta; Rusyn, Ivan; Saldiva, Paulo Hilário Nascimento; Sass, Jennifer; Savolainen, Kai; Scheepers, Paul T.J.; Sergi, Consolato; Silbergeld, Ellen K.; Smith, Martyn T.; Stewart, Bernard W.; Sutton, Patrice; Tateo, Fabio; Terracini, Benedetto; Thielmann, Heinz Walter; Thomas, David B.; Vainio, Harri; Vena, John E.; Víneis, Paolo; Weiderpass, Elisabete; Weisenburger, Dennis D.; Woodruff, Tracey J.; Yorifuji, Takashi; Yu, Il Je; Zambon, Paola; Zeeb, Hajo; Zhou, Shu-Feng

doi:10.1136/jech-2015-207005

Cited by 155 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A large team of researchers including 96 research professors from 22 countries worldwide (Portier et al, 2016) analyzed the data. Taking a contrary position were a set of six studies published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology (Acquavella et al, 2016;Brusick et al, 2016;McClellan, 2016;Solomon, 2016;Williams et al, 2016a,b), sponsored by Monsanto and other members of the pesticide industry, as declared in the papers themselves.…”

Section: Registration Of Glyphosate In the European Unionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union

Székacs

Darvas

2018

Front. Environ. Sci.

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Registration Of Glyphosate In the European Unionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union

Székacs

Darvas

2018

Front. Environ. Sci.

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In Olsson et al (1988), for example, the average latency period for NHL after exposure to solvents averaged 21 years. In the AHS, on the other hand, the time between exposure and assessment averaged a meagre 6.7 years (Portier et al, 2016). This puts the AHS data in the possible false negative range, largely reducing its validity at this stage: cancers may be yet to arrive.…”

Section: Lesson 5: Account For Real Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two assessments differed in a number of crucial aspects, as described by Portier et al (2016). Many would be worth exploring but a particular one, the discordant weight attributed to the studies available, is remarkable.…”

Section: Lesson 5: Account For Real Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

85. What have we learnt? If glyphosate were to become a late lesson we have now ignored the early warnings

Silva

Garcia

2016

Food Futures: Ethics, Science and Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current European Union reapproval procedure for glyphosate is developed as a case study testing whether the 12 precautionary lessons identified by European Environment Agency research as needed to avoid unnecessary harm to society have been incorporated into current regulatory approaches. The working hypothesis that those lessons have not been learnt to a significant degree could not be falsified.

show abstract

“…Previous research shows that the use of peer-reviewed studies as decision support may result in controversies, mainly because of disagreements as to the adequacy of studies. [15][16][17][18] There are several possible reasons for not using peer-reviewed studies in the assessment of chemicals; one being that searching for studies in the scientic literature is labour intensive and access to studies may not be free of charge. To aid in this process, the database containing peer-reviewed ecotoxicity studies for human pharmaceuticals was made public in 2009 as part of the research programme MistraPharma (https://www.mistrapharma.se).…”

Section: The Wikipharma Databasementioning

confidence: 99%

Refining tools to bridge the gap between academia and chemical regulation: perspectives for WikiREACH

Ågerstrand

Brenig

Führ

et al. 2017

Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Regulatory hazard and risk assessments of chemical substances have to include all reliable and relevant data to be credible and complete. However, screening the literature for appropriate studies and extracting data is burdensome. Therefore, reducing impediments by making data easily and readily accessible to risk assessors could result in more comprehensive hazard and risk assessments. In this paper, we study WikiPharma, a database that aggregates ecotoxicity data for pharmaceuticals, extracted from peerreviewed studies. The use of the WikiPharma database is explored to develop strategies on how similar tools can bridge between science and policy by providing risk assessors with easily accessible summary data. Specifically, adapting the concept of WikiPharma to industrial chemicals regulated under the REACH regulation is discussed. Experiences with WikiPharma show that there is interest in using peerreviewed studies in regulatory decision-making. However, tools like WikiPharma require constant updates. Hence, as for "WikiREACH", effective incentives are needed to motivate researchers to feed in relevant data for regulatory assessments. Besides, support by automated processes can aid in the labourintensive activity of gathering data. To ensure that such a tool is continuously maintained and compatible with the regulatory system, and thereby useful for hazard and risk assessments of chemicals, it would benefit from being developed in collaboration with the major stakeholders in the field, i.e. regulatory agencies, academia, industry, scientific journals, and providers of research network platforms. Environmental signicanceThis paper addresses how scientic research is (not) used in decision-making, focusing on peer-reviewed toxicity and ecotoxicity studies for regulatory assessments of chemicals. One possible reason for the overall low regulatory use of peer-reviewed studies is that the process of searching for studies is resource demanding. As a consequence, regulatory decisions are not based on all available information. This paper suggests the development of a tool that can facilitate the use of peer-reviewed studies in the REACH context ("WikiREACH"), based on experiences from the use and development of the WikiPharma database for ecotoxicity studies for pharmaceuticals. Creating equivalent tools for other groups of chemicals is possible and an important way forward.

show abstract

Differences in the carcinogenic evaluation of glyphosate between the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Cited by 155 publications

References 12 publications

Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union

Re-registration Challenges of Glyphosate in the European Union

85. What have we learnt? If glyphosate were to become a late lesson we have now ignored the early warnings

Refining tools to bridge the gap between academia and chemical regulation: perspectives for WikiREACH

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About