@article{BarileBerryBlaauboeretal.2021,
  author    = {Barile, Frank A. and Berry, Colin and Blaauboer, Bas and Boobis, Alan and Bolt, Herrmann M. and Borgert, Christopher and Dekant, Wolfgang and Dietrich, Daniel and Domingo, Jose L. and Galli, Corrado L. and Gori, Gio Batta and Greim, Helmut and Hengstler, Jan G. and Heslop-Harrison, Pat and Kacew, Sam and Marquardt, Hans and Mally, Angela and Pelkonen, Olavi and Savolainen, Kai and Testai, Emanuela and Tsatsakis, Aristides and Vermeulen, Nico P.},
  title     = {The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: in support of the BfR position},
  series = {Archives of Toxicology},
  volume    = {95},
  journal   = {Archives of Toxicology},
  number    = {9},
  issn      = {0340-5761},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00204-021-03125-w},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-307154},
  pages     = {3133-3136},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability (CSS) asserts that both human health and the environment are presently threatened and that further regulation is necessary. In a recent Guest Editorial, members of the German competent authority for risk assessment, the BfR, raised concerns about the scientific justification for this strategy. The complexity and interdependence of the networks of regulation of chemical substances have ensured that public health and wellbeing in the EU have continuously improved. A continuous process of improvement in consumer protection is clearly desirable but any initiative directed towards this objective must be based on scientific knowledge. It must not confound risk with other factors in determining policy. This conclusion is fully supported in the present Commentary including the request to improve both, data collection and the time-consuming and bureaucratic procedures that delay the publication of regulations.},
  language  = {en}
}