Arch Toxicol (2017) 91:3199–3203 DOI 10.1007/s00204-017-2032-8 REPLY Response to the reply by C. J. Portier and P. Clausing, concerning our review “Glyphosate toxicity and carcinogenicity: a review of the scientific basis of the European Union assessment and its differences with IARC” 1 1 1 1 Jose V. Tarazona · Daniele Court‑Marques · Manuela Tiramani · Hermine Reich · 2 1 1 Rudolf Pfeil · Frederique Istace · Federica Crivellente Received: 7 July 2017 / Accepted: 12 July 2017 / Published online: 25 July 2017 © Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017 We welcome the opportunity for having an evidence-based commenting rounds and the public consultation (EFSA scientific discussion on glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. We 2015b). Although our response will be restricted to the note that all of the findings in Table 1 of the Reply by Port - EFSA assessment presented in Tarazona et al. (2017), it is ier and Clausing (2017) have been available in the public worth noting the similarities in term of complementarity and domain in the supplemental data tables published by Greim transparency between the EFSA process under the pesticides et al. (2015; available online since February 2015). In addi- regulation and the ECHA process under Regulation (EC) No tion, some of these findings were also raised in the report 1272/2008. Germany as RMS under the Regulation (EC) No by IARC,
Archives of Toxicology – Springer Journals
Published: Jul 25, 2017
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud