My experiences with the MAK Commission: a response to a recent editorial
- 222 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...
- SCOEL (2014) Recommendation from the Scientific Committee on occupational exposure limits on nitrogen dioxide. SCOEL/SUM/53Google Scholar
- 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