Advertisement

Archives of Toxicology

, Volume 92, Issue 12, pp 3597–3598 | Cite as

My experiences with the MAK Commission: a response to a recent editorial

  • Helmut Greim
Letter to the Editor, News and Views
  • 90 Downloads

As the former chair of the MAK Commission, I highly appreciate the recent editorial published in this journal (Hengstler 2018). It not only describes the successful work of the committee—both past and ongoing—but also addresses the future challenges it faces due to the immense impact of its decisions on both industry and society. Also touched upon is the challenge now faced by the MAK Commission to develop new concepts for the evaluation of hazardous chemicals by integrating advanced scientific knowledge.

The MAK Commission is one of a handful of permanent Senate Commissions of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), the major scientific organisation in Germany. This structure has been of advantage to the committee because it has always assured independence from outside institutions, such as private industries, NGOs and regulatory agencies. This is well accepted by all parties, and to the best of my knowledge, no attempts have thus far been made to influence the decision-making...

References

  1. Brand P, Bertram J, Chaker A, Jörres RA, Kronseder A, Kraus T, Gube M (2016) Biological effects of unhaled nitrogen dioxide in healthy human subjects. Int Arch Occup Health 89:1017–1024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Greim H, Saltmiras D, Mostert V, Strupp C (2015) Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from forteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies. Crit Rev Toxicol 45:185–208CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Hengstler JG (2018) The MAK-commission: finding solutions to society’s future challenges. Arch Toxicol Sep.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-018-2313-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. SCOEL (2014) Recommendation from the Scientific Committee on occupational exposure limits on nitrogen dioxide. SCOEL/SUM/53Google Scholar
  5. Williams GM, Aardema M, Acquavella J, Berry C, Brusick D, Burns MM, de Camargo LV, Garabrant D, Greim HA, Kier LD, Kirkland DJ, Marsh G, Solomon KR, Sorahan T, Roberts A, Weed DL (2016) A review of the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate by four independent expert panels and comparison to the IARC assessment. Crit Rev Toxicol 46(sup1):3–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2016.1214677 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technische Universität MünchenFreising-WeihenstephanGermany

Personalised recommendations