However, sampling season should be regarded as a possible source of variation in exposure data. Taken together the results from this study indicate that the wild mink is a species suitable for sensitive and cost efficient environmental monitoring of PFAA exposure. This work was funded by the Environmental Monitoring Program at the Swedish University of Agricultural RG7204 in vitro Sciences. The mink hunters B. Almberg, G. Anttila, Å. Degermark, B. Engström, M. Eriksson, W. Eriksson,
T Hall, J. Karlsson, S. Karlsson, S-G. Lunneryd, M. Nilsson, B. Nyberg, A. Olofsson, E. Olsson, S. Sundin and S-A. Ängwald are thanked for their work of providing mink carcasses for this study. “
“On 26 and 27 November 2009, 29 experts met in Brussels to discuss current opinions on the effects of dietary exposure to endocrine-active pesticide residues. Representatives from academia, industry, government and non-profit organisations participated in a workshop combining expert lectures and
breakout sessions. The workshop was organised such that 8 presentations by experts with specialties in different aspects of endocrine disruption were followed by a breakout group session. Each of the 4 breakout groups discussed 2 questions posed to them by the workshop organisers and then gave a short presentation on their responses to GSK126 datasheet the questions, including whether or not they reached consensus on those responses. In the pages that follow, the 8 expert presentations and the presentations from the breakout sessions are summarised in detail. Interestingly, only one of the breakout groups was able to say that they had no significant disagreements, and for 3 of the questions 2 groups indicated that they could not reach any significant agreement at all (‘Is endocrine disruption a mechanism essentially different from other toxicological mechanisms?’, ‘Should [endocrine disrupting chemicals] Monoiodotyrosine therefore be regulated using different criteria?’
and ‘Is the effort currently dedicated to this subject [of pesticides with potentially endocrine disrupting properties] proportional to the real health risk?’). In each of these cases, the reason for the lack of consensus was attributed to a lack of adequate knowledge: Either on how to measure endocrine effects or on what the real health risks of these effects might be. These responses clearly underline the need for more research and more discussion on defining endocrine disrupting properties and then regulating potentially endocrine active substances. The November 2009 workshop in Brussels was the first in a series to be organised by the SAFE consortium with the aim of bringing scientific clarity to this discussion. The paper that follows expresses solely the opinions and recollections of the author. Each expert presentation summarised below was offered to the presenter for review and comment; those presentations with an * next to the author’s name were indeed reviewed and approved by the presenter.
Related posts: