Suchergebnisse

Suggests that carnage from accidents on highways arouse much less apprehension than nuclear accidents even though actual risk from automobiles is much greater than injury or death from nuclear reactors. Argues that the art and science of risk assessment will fall short of social and political realities until the psychological and cultural aspects of risk receive more adequate attention. (Original abstract-amended)

The assessment of epidemiological studies on the health effects of glyphosate is currently being discussed in the media. In this context, BfR evaluated a so-called expert opinion on epidemiological studies prepared by non-government organisations and concludes that no new findings are being reported for the joint European assessment of the active substance glyphosate. The accusations brought forth in the so-called expert opinion of scientific deception by the assessment authorities are completely unfounded and their content provides no new contri-bution to the scientific discourse. They were not made available in the public consultation or in a peer-reviewed publication. The BfR assessment report (RAR) that is criticised in the so-called expert report was exten-sively commented upon and evaluated by the general public, science, politics, trade and in-dustry and NGOs within the scope of the consultations of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on glyphosate. The report was confirmed and its contents were adopted by the experts of the member states, thus making it a European risk assessment and no longer a BfR or EFSA risk assessment. The assessment report is available to the EU Commission and member states for the purpose of reaching a decision on the re-authorisation of the ac-tive substance glyphosate. Incidentally, the result of the RAR complies with the specialised assessment of the epidemio-logical studies conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who also classified the indications for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans on the basis of the epidemiological studies as merely limited ("limited evidence in humans"). ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

This volume is the first of a series the Publisher decided to launch to cover different aspects related to Safety and Security Engineering in order to reach a comprehensive view on risk mitigation. The volume is devoted to floods, as one-third of the annual natural disasters and economic losses, and more than half of the respective victims are flood-related. A burgeoning global population and growing wealth, particularly in the last two or three decades, have increased the risk and the demand for protection from flooding. These features, together with climate change predictions and urban development, are affecting the way flood risk is managed. Knowledge and scientific tools play a role of paramount importance in the strain of coping with flooding problems, along with the capacity building in the context of political and administrative framework. Therefore, governments need to establish clear institutional, financial and social mechanisms and processes for flood risk management in order to ensure the safety of people and property and, thereby, contribute to both flood defence and sustainable development. The book covers the following topics: Risk assessment; Mathematical models for flood propagation; Effect of topographic data resolution; Social and psychological aspects; Decision making and management; Legislations and directives; Alternatives in flood protection; Response and recovery; Damages and economic - related problems; Case studies

Directive 91/414/EEC concerning the "placing of plant protection products on the market" entered into force on 15 July 1991. This Directive stipulates that active substances contained in plant protection products must be assessed regarding the possible risks for humans, ani-mals and the environment. Only when this assessment confirms that their use does not con-stitute a risk for users, consumers, animals and the environment, are the active substances entered in an EU positive list which means that preparations with these active substances may be approved in the individual Member States of the European Union. Since 15 July 2006 a proposal has been on the table for the carrying over of this Directive into an EU Regulation which has since been discussed on various levels. On 23 June 2008 the Council of the European Union agreed on the text of the new Regula-tion. In the autumn of 2008 the European Parliament will look at this proposal. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has voiced its opinion below on the new Regulation concerning the points of relevance for BfR's assessment work. As this is initially a Council proposal to revise Directive 91/414/EEC, changes may still be made particularly as a consequence of the proposals of the European Parliament. To ensure consumer health protection, BfR recommends the following with reference to the current Council proposal: the approval of a pesticide should not depend primarily on the sub-stance's genotoxic, carcinogenic, reprotoxic and hormonal properties when, instead, thresh-old values can be established above which a health risk is to be expected. When assessing the risk, exposure - i.e. the active substance concentration ingested by consumers - should also be taken into account. ; DE; de; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de