Most recent articles from the Collegium Ramazzini:

Most recent INEP activities

Census/Asbestos/E-Cigarettes/Ethics/Ukraine/Covid-19/Air pollution

by  Marlene °Agerstrand et al, in Environmental Science: Processes and Impacts, April 2017

DOI: 10.1039/C7EM00075H, Link:

The interactions between academic research and regulatory assessment of chemicals may in theory seem straight forward: researchers perform studies, and these studies are used by regulators for decision-making. In practice, even for chemicals that have been researched by independent scientists, the regulatory chemical assessments have been shown to be based primarily on toxicity studies sponsored and/or conducted by the chemical industry. This is problematic for at least two reasons. First, we run the risk of making less informed decisions when excluding peer-reviewed studies. Second, there is an inherent conflict of interest in the system when the main responsibility for data gathering and risk assessments lies on the party that has economic interest in having the chemical on the market. To help bridge the gap, °Agerstrand and her colleagues give an overview of the general workings of legislation of chemicals and propose a set of actions to increase the usability of independent studies.

see also SYRINA, below:


A proposed framework for the systematic review and integrated assessment (SYRINA) of endocrine disrupting chemicals

by Laura N. Vandenberg et al. in Environmental Health, (2016) 15:74

The issue of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is receiving wide attention from both the scientific and regulatory communities. When using the SYRINA framework, the overall objective is to provide the evidence base needed to support decision making, including any action to avoid/minimise potential adverse effects of exposures. This framework allows for the evaluation and synthesis of evidence from multiple evidence streams. Finally, a decision regarding regulatory action is not only dependent on the strength of evidence, but also the consequences of action/inaction, e.g. limited or weak evidence may be sufficient to justify action if consequences are serious or irreversible.

DOI 10.1186/s12940-016-0156-6, Link: