Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37259092›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2023

Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union.

Axel Mie, Christina Rudén

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Impacts of Plant Protection Products on Biodiversity: Limits of Risk Assessment and Avenues to Ground Liability.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Environmental Risk Factors for Parkinson's Disease: A Critical Review and Policy Implications.Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Axel MieDepartment of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 10691, Sweden. axel.mie@aces.su.se.
Christina RudénDepartment of Environmental Science, Stockholm University, Stockholm, 10691, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the European Union (EU), the safety assessment of plant protection products relies to a large extent on toxicity studies commissioned by the companies producing them. By law, all performed studies must be included in the dossier submitted to authorities when applying for approval or renewal of the active substance.

methodsFor one type of toxicity, i.e. developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), we evaluated if studies submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had also been disclosed to EU authorities.

resultsWe identified 35 DNT studies submitted to the U.S. EPA and with the corresponding EU dossiers available. Of these, 9 DNT studies (26%) were not disclosed by the pesticide company to EU authorities. For 7 of these studies, we have identified an actual or potential regulatory impact.

conclusionsWe conclude that (1) non-disclosure of DNT studies to EU authorities, in spite of clear legal requirements, seems to be a recurring phenomenon, (2) the non-disclosure may introduce a bias in the regulatory risk assessment, and (3) without full access to all performed toxicity studies, there can be no reliable safety evaluation of pesticides by EU authorities. We suggest that EU authorities should cross-check their data sets with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. In addition, applications for pesticide approval should be cross-checked against lists of studies performed at test facilities operating under Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), to ensure that all studies have been submitted to authorities. Furthermore, rules should be amended so that future studies should be commissioned by authorities rather than companies. This ensures the authorities' knowledge of existing studies and prevents the economic interest of the company from influencing the design, performance, reporting and dissemination of studies. The rules or practices should also be revised to ensure that non-disclosure of toxicity studies carries a significant legal risk for pesticide companies.

Indexed as

Environmental PolicyPesticidesEuropean UnionHumansNeurotoxicity SyndromesPesticidesDevelopmental neurotoxicityNon-disclosurePesticidesPlant protection productsRegulatory assessmentReporting bias

Identifiers

PMID37259092
PMCPMC10234068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.