@article{GuthHueserRothetal.2021,
  author    = {Guth, Sabine and H{\"u}ser, Stephanie and Roth, Angelika and Degen, Gisela and Diel, Patrick and Edlund, Karolina and Eisenbrand, Gerhard and Engel, Karl-Heinz and Epe, Bernd and Grune, Tilman and Heinz, Volker and Henle, Thomas and Humpf, Hans-Ulrich and J{\"a}ger, Henry and Joost, Hans-Georg and Kulling, Sabine E. and Lampen, Alfonso and Mally, Angela and Marchan, Rosemarie and Marko, Doris and M{\"u}hle, Eva and Nitsche, Michael A. and R{\"o}hrdanz, Elke and Stadler, Richard and van Thriel, Christoph and Vieths, Stefan and Vogel, Rudi F. and Wascher, Edmund and Watzl, Carsten and N{\"o}thlings, Ute and Hengstler, Jan G.},
  title     = {Contribution to the ongoing discussion on fluoride toxicity},
  series = {Archives of Toxicology},
  volume    = {95},
  journal   = {Archives of Toxicology},
  number    = {7},
  issn      = {0340-5761},
  doi       = {10.1007/s00204-021-03072-6},
  url       = {http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bvb:20-opus-307161},
  pages     = {2571-2587},
  year      = {2021},
  abstract  = {Since the addition of fluoride to drinking water in the 1940s, there have been frequent and sometimes heated discussions regarding its benefits and risks. In a recently published review, we addressed the question if current exposure levels in Europe represent a risk to human health. This review was discussed in an editorial asking why we did not calculate benchmark doses (BMD) of fluoride neurotoxicity for humans. Here, we address the question, why it is problematic to calculate BMDs based on the currently available data. Briefly, the conclusions of the available studies are not homogeneous, reporting negative as well as positive results; moreover, the positive studies lack control of confounding factors such as the influence of well-known neurotoxicants. We also discuss the limitations of several further epidemiological studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria of our review. Finally, it is important to not only focus on epidemiological studies. Rather, risk analysis should consider all available data, including epidemiological, animal, as well as in vitro studies. Despite remaining uncertainties, the totality of evidence does not support the notion that fluoride should be considered a human developmental neurotoxicant at current exposure levels in European countries.},
  language  = {en}
}
@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}
}