Scientists say risk assessment is compromised when decisions are made on the basis of a few studies done by the companies that want to commercialise the product

As long-time critics of the biased system in which risky substances like pesticides and GMOs are safety tested for regulatory authorisation by the very same companies that stand to profit from a conclusion of safety, we're delighted to see peer-reviewed papers from scientists and experts appearing on the topic.

As a footnote to this, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2013 that the European Commission should disclose industry safety and compositional studies on the pesticide glyphosate, which are currently hidden from the public under commercial confidentiality rules.

More about this ruling here.

The Commission has appealed against the ruling, but no information is available yet on this case, which is ongoing.

It's nice to know whose side the Commission is on in this matter!
---

Pesticide regulation amid the influence of industry

Michelle D. Boone, Christine A. Bishop, Leigh A. Boswell, Robert D. Brodman, Joanna Burger, Carlos Davidson, Michael Gochfeld, Jason T. Hoverman, Lorin A. Neuman-Lee, Rick A. Relyea, Jason R. Rohr, Christopher Salice, Raymond D. Semlitsch, Donald Sparling and Scott Weir
BioScience (2014) doi: 10.1093/biosci/biu138 First published online: September 3, 2014
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/09/01/biosci.biu138.short?rss=1

Abstract

Pesticide use results in the widespread distribution of chemical contaminants, which necessit[at]es regulatory agencies to assess the risks to environmental and human health. However, risk assessment is compromised when relatively few studies are used to determine impacts, particularly if most of the data used in an assessment are produced by a pesticide's manufacturer, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Here, we present the shortcomings of the US Environmental Protection Agency's pesticide risk assessment process, using the recent reassessment of atrazine's impacts on amphibians as an example. We then offer solutions to improve the risk assessment process, which would reduce the potential for and perception of bias in a process that is crucial for environmental and human health.