14 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Ecotoxicology and environmental safety: EES ; official journal of the International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety, Band 262, S. 115163
ISSN: 1090-2414
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 26, Heft 9, S. 8459-8467
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: Marine policy, Band 162, S. 106058
ISSN: 0308-597X
In: Environmental science and pollution research: ESPR, Band 28, Heft 20, S. 26055-26063
ISSN: 1614-7499
In: Ecotoxicology and environmental safety: EES ; official journal of the International Society of Ecotoxicology and Environmental safety, Band 260, S. 115019
ISSN: 1090-2414
In: Environmental science & policy, Band 114, S. 506-518
ISSN: 1462-9011
In: Environmental science & policy, Band 126, S. 122-131
ISSN: 1462-9011
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.
BASE
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. ; Stockholm University ; http://www.ehjournal.net/content/12/1/69 ; am2014
BASE
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.
BASE
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. ; ISSN:1476-069X
BASE
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.
BASE
In: Bergman , Å , Andersson , A-M , Becher , G , Berg , M V D , Blumberg , B , Bjerregaard , P , Bornehag , C-G , Bornman , R , Brandt , I , Brian , J V , Casey , S C , Fowler , P A , Frouin , H , Giudice , L C , Iguchi , T , Hass , U , Jobling , S , Juul , A , Kidd , K A , Kortenkamp , A , Lind , M , Martin , O V , Muir , D , Ochieng , R , Olea , N , Norrgren , L , Ropstad , E , Ross , P S , Rudén , C , Scheringer , M , Skakkebæk , N E , Söder , O , Sonnenschein , C , Soto , A , Swan , S , Toppari , J , Tyler , C R , Vandenberg , L N , Vinggaard , A M , Wiberg , K & Zoeller , R T 2013 , ' Science and policy on endocrine disrupters must not be mixed: a reply to a "common sense" intervention by toxicology journal editors ' , Environmental Health (Online Edition) , vol. 12 , 69 . https://doi.org/10.1186/1476-069X-12-69
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.
BASE
In: Tufts University faculty scholarship.
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. ; Keywords: Endocrine disrupting chemicals, Environment, Health, Precautionary principle, Regulatory toxicology. ; Springer Open.
BASE