Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41654646›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2026

Regulation of chemicals demands assessment of risks rather than identification of hazards only.

P Marx-Stoelting, V Ritz, M Herzler, C Kneuer, K Aiello-Holden, S Brescia, S E Escher, S Feustel, E Fritsche, J Gebel and 13 more

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

23 authors.

P Marx-Stoelting *German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany. philip.marx-stoelting@bfr.bund.de.
V Ritz *German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
M HerzlerGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
C KneuerGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
K Aiello-HoldenGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
S BresciaHealth and Safety Executive (HSE), Chemicals Regulation Division (CRD), Merseyside, UK.
S E EscherFraunhofer ITEM, Hannover, Germany.
S FeustelGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
E FritscheSwiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology (SCAHT), University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
J GebelUniversity Hospital Bonn, Institute for Hygiene and Public Health, Bonn, Germany.
E F KennyGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
R LandsiedelGerman Society for Toxicology (GT), Mainz, Germany.
P SandersFrench National Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety, Paris, France.
M SchwarzDepartment for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacogenomics, Eberhard Karls University, Tübingen, Germany.
M StreitzFriedrich-Löffler-Institute, Riems, Germany.
E TestaiFormerly Instituto Superiore di Sanità, Environment and Health Dept., Rome, Italy.
B van RavenzwaayUniversity of Wageningen, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
W WaetjenInstitute for Agriculture and Food Science, Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.
K WendGerman Federal Ministry for Agriculture, Food and Rural Environments, Berlin, Germany.
M WilksDepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
A LuchGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
T TralauGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
A HenselGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This position paper was collaboratively written during the international expert symposium "EU Chemicals Assessment - Risk- or Hazard-based?" that was organised by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) in Berlin on November 27th and 28th 2025. Twenty experts from several institutions and European countries considered the scientific merits of both hazard-based and risk-based approaches to chemical safety assessment. While hazard information is essential, it does not reflect real-world exposure conditions that determine the likelihood of harm. On balance, we support a risk-based approach because it enables more proportionate, transparent and scientifically grounded regulatory decisions.

Indexed as

Government RegulationHazardous SubstancesAnimalsEnvironmental ExposureEuropean UnionHumansRisk AssessmentHazardous Substances

Identifiers

PMID41654646
PMCPMC12967599

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.