ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2010
Scientific report of the Endocrine Active Substances Task Force.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Susceptibility of Human Spermatozoa to Titanium Dioxide Nanoparticles: Evaluation of DNA Damage and Biomarkers.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Multistress effects on goldfish (Carassius auratus) behavior and metabolism.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2016Article
- Scientific Opinion on Exploring options for providing advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC).EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2012Article
- Scientific report of the Endocrine Active Substances Task Force.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Discussions within the Scientific Committee and the Advisory Forum have called for the development of a common approach within EFSA towards endocrine active substances. The aim of this report by an internal EFSA task force is to clarify the state-of-play, and provide recommendations for scientific and communication issues. Both specific issues and new regulations make it necessary to follow up on recent developments with the EU bodies, Member States, and internationally, in order to avoid diverging assessment approaches and the duplication of work. The proposed actions for EFSA are to contribute to the work in progress under the auspices of DG Environment and to continue its participation in the ongoing OECD activities in the area of testing of chemicals. The development of a generally accepted risk assessment methodology is an additional challenge due to the complexity of the issues involved. Here, the task force recommends that EFSA continues its activities aimed at developing harmonised methodologies for risk assessment of combined exposures to endocrine active substances in food. EFSA should continue to build a dialogue to develop a common strategy with the EC, other EU bodies, Member States' Competent Authorities, international organisations and partners, as well as external experts and stakeholders on the before mentioned issues. In line with these recommendations, it is proposed that EFSA creates a working group of Panel experts and national experts to advise on prioritising the work on endocrine active substances. EFSA should also work with the experts in its Advisory Group on Risk Communications in conjunction with the communication experts from Member States, and continues to monitor and analyse media and stakeholder developments, in order to define a strategy for communications addressing both the collective group and specific endocrine active substances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.