LL2-27 hindsight check: Ch 27, “More or less precaution?” (David Gee)#

Late lessons from early warnings: science, precaution, innovation (EEA Report No 1/2013), report pp. 643–669 (text pp. 643–662). Hindsight window: 2013 to late September 2026. Checked against the digest (digests/LL2-27.md) and the source extract (text/chunks/LL2-27.txt).

Method note. The session’s web-search allowance was used up before this task began; the first search returned a budget error. Evidence was therefore gathered by retrieving primary sources directly:

• EU legislation and case law from the EU Publications Office (Cellar and its SPARQL endpoint). EUR-Lex’s HTML pages were blocked, so the ELI or CELEX identifiers are cited instead.
• US documents from the Federal Register and govinfo.gov.
• Journal records and abstracts via Europe PMC and Crossref. Full text was read where it was open access (e.g. Hansen and Gee 2014).
• Agency pages fetched directly: EFSA, FDA, Health Canada, WHO, UNEP, the US National Nanotechnology Initiative and IARC.

Items cited from their official identifiers but not re-read in this session are marked [not re-retrieved]. Items resting on news or advocacy sources are marked [secondary]. Without a search engine, post-2013 critiques I did not already know of, or could not reach through bibliographic databases, may be missing. That gap matters most for claim 5 (funding bias in cost–benefit analysis) and claim 8 (international participation arrangements).

Scope note. Ch 27 is a cross-cutting synthesis by the project’s originator and editor. Most of its factual claims summarise other chapters. The check below does two things:

• tests the chapter’s own empirical and predictive claims against post-2013 evidence;
• records how its framework was received and taken up, or pushed back against, in policy.

Annex 3 (updates of 2001 cases) falls outside this task’s file permissions and was not consulted. The chapter’s minor factual slips noted in the digest (“Johnson & Johnson … 1977”; “baby toys”) are not rechecked here.

Overview#

The diagnosis has held up better than the prescription. Evidence since 2013 has repeatedly confirmed the chapter’s account of why action on early warnings is slow. It has not confirmed the chapter’s claim that more precaution would reliably reduce harm and stimulate innovation. Over the same period that claim became the central point of political dispute.

Barriers and product defence (claims 1, 3): held up. Newly disclosed documents extend the “product defence” pattern well beyond the chapter’s cases:

• PFAS manufacturers knew of toxicity by 1970, about 40 years before the public-health literature (Gaber et al. 2023).
• A foundational glyphosate safety review was retracted in December 2025 over ghostwriting and undisclosed conflicts.
• A sugar trade association’s 1960s research sponsorship came to light (Kearns et al. 2016).
• An oil major’s internal climate projections contradicted its public statements (Supran et al. 2023).

Two cautions apply. Much of this evidence concerns conduct before 2013 that surfaced only through litigation or archives. The “manufactured doubt” label is itself now contested in specific cases: the glyphosate retraction drew a counter-campaign in 2026, and regulators’ conclusions on glyphosate were unchanged.

Evidence standards (claims 1, 4): the dispute became explicit policy on both sides of the Atlantic.

• The EU moved further toward graded, purpose-specific evidence standards. It adopted “suspected” hazard categories for endocrine disruption and persistence in 2023, formal uncertainty-analysis guidance at EFSA in 2018, and a mechanistic evidence stream at IARC in 2019.
• In 2025 the US moved the other way. Executive Order 14303 instructs agencies that “overly precautionary assumptions and scenarios” be used only where required by law. It places enforcement of scientific integrity under senior political appointees.
• The chapter’s argument that the choice of evidentiary standard is a value judgement (pp. 656–658) is vindicated by this open politicisation. Its hope that recognising this would lead to lower thresholds for action is not.

Statistical practice (claim 4): partly held up. Misuse of significance testing is now widely acknowledged (ASA 2016; Amrhein et al. 2019), and p-value reporting remains entrenched (Choi et al. 2026 preprint). The replication crisis, however, shows that research methods also generate false positives. The chapter’s one-directional claim that methods are biased toward false negatives needs qualifying.

Funding bias (claim 5): partly held up. The funding effect is firmly established for drug and device trials (Cochrane 2017). It is evident in sugar-sweetened beverage reviews and GM Bt-crop studies. It is weaker and non-significant in a meta-analysis of nutrition studies (2016). For cost–benefit analysis the chapter’s “routinely” remains an assertion. The best retrospective work finds ex ante regulatory costs usually exceed ex post costs, but argues this need not reflect bias.

The chapter’s “emerging hazards” have diverged (claim 6).

Innovation and lock-in (claim 7): partly held up. The lock-in half gained strong new evidence. The US EPA’s 2024 asbestos rule found asbestos-diaphragm chlor-alkali plants 42–83 years old, with 5–12-year conversions to more energy-efficient membrane technology. The innovation half holds only in the weak Porter sense: regulation induces innovation, but meta-analyses find no reliable net competitiveness gain. Regrettable substitution recurred and the chapter does not address it: BPA to BPS/BPF, CFCs to HFCs, and fluorinated replacements in firefighting foams.

Participation and transparency (claim 8): partly held up. EU food-chain transparency went well beyond the “EFSA 2013” improvements the chapter cites (Regulation 2019/1381). NGOs gained standing to challenge pesticide approvals (Aarhus amendment 2021; PAN Europe v Commission, December 2025). Structured public participation in framing hazard questions, the chapter’s central recommendation, remains limited.

Interphone (claim 9): weakened. The published abstract leads with “Overall, no increase in risk”, which the chapter omits. Later work weakens both the chapter’s reading of Interphone and its diagnosis of the confusion:

• a 2024 bias simulation reproduces Interphone’s heavy-user excess under a no-effect assumption;
• the COSMOS cohort (2024) found no association;
• the WHO-commissioned review (2024) rated the evidence against increased risk as moderate-certainty.

The overall prescription (claim 10): contested. After about 2019 the policy climate moved against it:

• the EU’s “innovation principle” was written into Horizon Europe (2021);
• the Draghi report (2024) linked precaution to restrained innovation;
• EU chemicals simplification followed (2025);
• the 2026 NGT Regulation relaxed rules for gene-edited plants;
• US deregulatory orders appeared (2025).

EU and French courts pushed back in specific cases (neonicotinoids 2023; the French Constitutional Council 2025). No systematic evidence yet shows that “wider use” of precaution has had net effects either way.

Net weight for use as a lens.

• Strong weight: the chapter’s procedural tools. These are purpose-specific evidence thresholds, the asymmetry of causal criteria, “no evidence of harm is not evidence of no harm”, the knowledge/ignorance distinction, and attention to who bears errors and costs.
• Strong weight: its diagnosis of barriers, corporate product defence and institutional short-termism.
• Moderate weight: its research-funding and funding-bias claims. They are directionally right, but its specific EU figure is not reproducible and “routinely” in cost–benefit analysis is unevidenced.
• Low weight: its selection of “emerging hazards” as a predictive set, and its claim that wider precaution reliably stimulates innovation.

Summary of verdicts

Claim 1. Seven common barriers “explain much about the decades-long delay between warnings and action”#

Original claim (p. 645). Across the case studies, seven barriers “explain much about the decades‑long delay between warnings and action”:

1. opposition from powerful corporations “supported by some scientists, policymakers and politicians”;
2. misunderstandings about the PP’s definition;
3. difficulty with complex, multicausal systems, uncertainty, ignorance and “surprises”;
4. tension between the high strength of evidence needed for scientific causality and the lower strength needed for timely policy;
5. inadequate cost–benefit analysis and “unrealistic market prices” that externalise costs;
6. political and financial short-termism;
7. failure to engage civil society.

Barriers 1, 6 and 7 are said to concern political and economic power, and 2–5 the technical application of knowledge.

Subsequent developments, barrier by barrier

Barrier 1: corporate opposition. New documentary evidence has strongly reinforced this barrier (details under claim 3).

• PFAS. Industry archives show manufacturers knew by 1970 that PFAS were “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested”, about 40 years before the public-health community. They suppressed unfavourable research and distorted public discourse (Gaber, Bero and Woodruff, Annals of Global Health, 1 June 2023) [S1]. Regulation followed decades later: IARC classed PFOA as carcinogenic (Group 1) in November 2023 [S2]; the EU restricted PFAS in firefighting foams in October 2025 [S3]; US drinking-water limits followed in April 2024 [S4].
• Across industries. Syntheses that did not exist in 2013 now describe the pattern:
• Legg, Hatchard and Gilmore (2021) found eight corporate sectors repeatedly trying to influence science, including by “reshaping of criteria for establishing scientific ‘proof’” [S5];
• Goldberg and Vandenberg (2021) catalogued 28 doubt-manufacturing tactics [S6];
• the Lancet series on commercial determinants of health (Gilmore et al., March 2023) generalised the pattern [S7].
• A limit. These syntheses are largely by authors in the same critical tradition as the chapter, and their samples are purposive.

Barrier 2: misunderstanding of the PP. Confusion has not been resolved, but it has shifted.

• A review of 15 EU laws and judgments found the decision to invoke precaution “poorly defined”. It found the Commission’s 2000 guidance “not followed consistently” in legislation (Garnett and Parsons, Risk Analysis, published online May 2016, print 2017) [S8].
• Löfstedt (2014) called a formal review of the EU’s use of the principle “long overdue” [S9].
• The Court of Justice upheld the pesticides regulation against a precaution-based challenge (Blaise, C‑616/17, 1 October 2019) [S10].
• The larger change is political. An “innovation principle” was set alongside precaution (claim 10). The dispute moved from what the PP means to how much weight it should carry.

Barrier 3: complexity and multicausality. This has been partly institutionalised.

• EFSA’s Scientific Committee confirmed non-monotonic dose responses “in certain studies”, especially for “receptor-mediated effects”. It called for international guidance (21 October 2021) [S11].
• The EU created new hazard classes for endocrine disruption and for persistent, mobile and toxic substances (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/707, 19 December 2022, OJ 31 March 2023) [S12].
• Mixtures remain largely unaddressed in authorisation practice. Blaise noted that the law requires “known cumulative and synergistic effects” to be considered only where accepted methods are available [S10].

Barrier 4: the standard of proof. This is now an explicit political fault line, which is strong confirmation that it is a real barrier.

• EU: graded evidence standards.
• EFSA guidance on weight of evidence (August 2017) [S13] and uncertainty analysis (January 2018) [S14].
• IARC’s 2019 Preamble revision, which admits mechanistic “key characteristics” evidence (Samet et al., JNCI, January 2020) [S15].
• CLP “suspected” categories [S12].
• US: the opposite direction.
• Executive Order 14303, “Restoring Gold Standard Science” (signed 23 May 2025), states: “Highly unlikely and overly precautionary assumptions and scenarios should only be relied upon in agency decision-making where required by law or otherwise pertinent to the agency’s action.” It places enforcement under a “senior appointee” [S16].
• The White House science adviser defended it under the title “Sound policy demands sound science” (Science, 24 June 2025) [S17]. The chapter flagged that phrase (p. 646) as appropriated by tobacco-industry public relations.
• Critics called the order “Fool’s gold” (Michaels and Wagner, Science, 19 June 2025) [S18] and argued it “does anything but” deliver gold-standard science (Goldman and Barbati-Dajches, BMJ, 5 June 2025) [S19].
• Science’s editor argued that the scientific community’s own “sluggishness and defensiveness” had enabled it (Thorp, 24 June 2025) [S20].
• Disagreement among independent public assessors. The same period showed that such bodies can disagree sharply on identical evidence:
• BPA: EFSA versus BfR, EMA and US FDA (claim 6).
• Glyphosate: IARC (2015) versus EFSA and ECHA. The EU renewed approval for ten years (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660, 28 November 2023) [S21].
• Chartres et al. (2022), with Gee as co-author, treat “divergent evaluations of evidence” as a mechanism of delay in its own right [S22]. It fits barrier 4 but is not the same as corporate opposition.

Barrier 5: cost analysis and unrealistic prices. This remains live and politically reversible.

• Retrospective cost studies. Studies generally find that ex ante compliance-cost estimates exceed ex post costs more often than not. Simpson (2014) argues this “does not necessarily demonstrate” bias [S23].
• Cost of inaction. Estimates are contested. An EU estimate of €157 billion a year from endocrine-disrupting chemicals (Trasande et al., March 2015) [S24] was attacked as “highly speculative” (Bond and Dietrich, May 2017) [S25].
• Valuing externalities. In the US the valuation of carbon externalities was withdrawn by executive order. EO 14154 (20 January 2025) disbanded the interagency working group on the social cost of greenhouse gases and called the social cost of carbon “marked by logical deficiencies … politicization” [S26].
• Reform in the chapter’s direction. The 2016 Lautenberg amendments to the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) require EPA to determine risk “without consideration of costs or non-risk factors” [S27, not re-retrieved; wording confirmed in later EPA notices, S28].

Barrier 6: short-termism.

• Rollbacks.
• In May 2026 EPA proposed extending compliance for its PFOA and PFOS drinking-water limits from April 2029 to April 2031, and rescinding limits for four other PFAS [S29].
• In September 2025 EPA proposed rescinding parts of its 2024 TSCA risk-evaluation procedures [S28].
• In July 2025 the Commission promised a “targeted revision of REACH to simplify the rules” by the end of 2025, and an omnibus it said would save industry “at least EUR 363 million per year” [S30]. I found no REACH-revision proposal in the EU legal database by late September 2026.
• The universal PFAS restriction was still under ECHA committee assessment, “scheduled to conclude in 2026” [S30].
• Institutional responses extending the chapter’s examples (p. 659):
• Wales’s Well-being of Future Generations Act 2015 [S31, not re-retrieved];
• the UN Declaration on Future Generations, adopted 22 September 2024 [S32, not re-retrieved];
• an EU Commissioner with an “intergenerational fairness” portfolio from December 2024 [S33, not re-retrieved].

Their effect on hazard decisions is undocumented.

Barrier 7: civil-society engagement. Engagement has increased, largely through transparency and litigation rather than participatory framing (claim 8).

Critiques and gaps.

• The seven barriers are a qualitative synthesis drawn from a case set chosen to illustrate late action. No post-2013 study has tested their relative explanatory weight.
• Other causes of delay that later evidence highlights get little attention in the chapter:
• genuine disagreement among independent public assessors;
• real benefit–risk trade-offs (neonicotinoids and crop protection, claim 7);
• public bodies as the “risk makers”.

Verdict: held up. Every barrier recurs clearly in post-2013 cases. The PFAS record (industry knowledge by 1970, restrictions in the 2020s) is close to a textbook instance of barriers 1, 4, 5 and 6 together. The claim that the barriers “explain much” remains an interpretive judgement, not a tested finding.

Implications for weight. Use the seven-barrier list as a strong diagnostic checklist (digest insights 6, 7 and 13). Add two barriers the chapter underplays: divergent independent assessments, and genuine trade-offs. Barrier 4 is the most useful for a lens. The fight over evidentiary standards is now explicit, and a framework that treats “how much evidence is enough” as a value choice is well placed to analyse it.

Claim 2. Public research funding is skewed toward product development (about 3% of EUR 28.5 billion on hazards; 1% of USDA biotech research)#

Original claim (p. 646). “Over the past two decades public research funding by the EU on nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology was heavily biased towards product development, with only about 3 % of the EUR 28.5 billion budget spent on investigating their potential hazards.” No source is given. In the US, 1% of USD 1.8 billion of USDA biotechnology research (1992–2002) went to risk-related research (Mellon 2003).

Subsequent developments

The EU figure. The underlying analysis appeared a year later as Hansen and Gee (2014), prepared “in preparation for volume 2” [S34]. Its Table 1 gives, for EU Framework Programmes 4–7:

Hansen and Gee recommend devoting “some 5–15% of RTD” to EHS research.

• My arithmetic from their table.
• All three technologies together: about EUR 31.1 billion, with about 1.3% on EHS.
• Nanotechnology plus biotechnology alone: about 3.1%, but on EUR 12.3 billion.
• Neither combination reproduces “about 3% of EUR 28.5 billion”. The chapter’s figure is not traceable. If the information-technology budget is included, the imbalance was probably larger than the chapter stated.
• Caveats the authors state. Figures rely on the Commission’s own classification of EHS research. FP7 figures cover only its first three calls.

US nanotechnology.

• The US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) reported that EHS research rose “from under 3% … in 2005 to over 7% in the 2015 Budget”. That was about USD 110 million a year, with cumulative spending over USD 900 million (2005–2015) (NNI FY2015 budget supplement) [S35].
• By 2024 the whole “Responsible Development” component (EHS plus ethical, legal and social research) was USD 53.9 million of USD 2,248.3 million (2.4%).
• It was an estimated 2.3% in 2025. The 2026 request was USD 15.5 million of USD 1,449.1 million (1.1%) (NNI FY2026 budget supplement) [S36].
• The share rose after the chapter’s warnings and has since fallen back below the 2005 level.
• The NNI’s nanoEHS emphasis has shifted toward incidental nanomaterials, such as micro- and nanoplastics and wildfire smoke [S36].

USDA. The statute now requires USDA to withhold “at least 2 percent” of its biotechnology research outlays for risk-assessment grants (7 U.S.C. §5921(g)(2)) [S37]. That is double the 1% the chapter reports, but still small.

EU chemicals. The EU launched the Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC). It has “a total budget of over 400 million euro” over seven years and about 200 organisations (Marx-Stoelting et al., January 2023) [S38]. This is a substantial public investment in risk-assessment science, but I found no figure for its share of Horizon Europe.

Agenda-setting evidence. A scoping review of 36 studies found industry sponsorship “tends to prioritize lines of inquiry that focus on products, processes, or activities that can be commercialized”. Document studies showed industries reshaping “entire fields of research” (Fabbri et al., AJPH, September 2018) [S39].

Research inertia (the chapter’s companion point). Research concentrates on well-known agents:

• Hansen and Gee’s bibliometric analysis of 78 EHS journals [S34];
• Grandjean (2016) on “almost endless replications” on toxic metals while “less well-known hazards” are neglected [S40].

Verdict: partly held up. The direction of the claim is well supported and, for the EU, probably understated. US data show hazard-research shares can rise after warnings and then erode. The specific EU figure is unsourced in the chapter and cannot be reproduced from the authors’ own published table. All such ratios depend heavily on how “hazard research” is classified.

Implications for weight. Give moderate-to-strong weight to the structural point (digest insight 5): public R&D spending on a new technology dwarfs spending on its hazards, and the share is politically fragile. Do not quote “3% of EUR 28.5 billion”. Cite Hansen and Gee (2014) directly, with its classification caveats. The US series is a useful illustration that attention to hazards is not self-sustaining.

Claim 3. Prediction: industries with hazardous products to defend “would employ similar strategies, including trying to control … the relevant scientific research”#

Original claim (pp. 645–646). Tobacco, lead, vinyl chloride, beryllium and climate-change cases show “product defence” campaigns. “It seems likely that other industries with hazardous products to defend today would employ similar strategies, including trying to control, directly or indirectly, the relevant scientific research.” Loaded language (“natural”, “sound science”) is part of the repertoire.

Subsequent developments

• PFAS. Document analysis shows suppression of unfavourable research and distortion of public discourse from the 1960s–70s onward [S1]. The authors add that they “did not find evidence in this archive of funding favorable research”. The repertoire varies by case.
• Glyphosate.
• Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology retracted the widely cited 2000 safety review by Williams, Kroes and Munro. The retraction notice appeared online 4 December 2025 [S41]. It cites, as summarised by its critics, “potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies” [S42].
• Counter-evidence: Moretto and Boobis (RTP, March 2026) argue the retraction “does not affect the conclusions” of the 2016 FAO/WHO pesticide-residue evaluation (JMPR) [S43]. A group of toxicologists called for reversal of the retraction as “editorial overreach” and “censorship” (Borgert et al., EXCLI Journal, July 2026) [S42].
• The conduct is now formally recognised by the journal. Whether it distorted the regulatory conclusions is disputed.
• Sugar. Internal documents show a sugar trade association sponsored 1960s research that played down sugar’s role in coronary heart disease (Kearns, Schmidt and Glantz, JAMA Internal Medicine, November 2016) [S44].
• Climate. A major oil company’s own scientists’ 1977–2003 projections “accurately forecast warming”, while “the company’s public statements about climate science contradicted its own scientific data” (Supran, Rahmstorf and Oreskes, Science, January 2023) [S45].
• Tobacco, continued. WHO refused to partner with a foundation funded by a tobacco company: “WHO will not partner with the Foundation. Governments should not partner with the Foundation” (28 September 2017) [S46].
• Loaded language. The “sound science” framing reappeared in US federal science policy in 2025 (claim 1, barrier 4) [S16, S17]. This shows the rhetoric is not only corporate.

Qualifications.

• Most of the new evidence concerns conduct before 2013 that surfaced after it through litigation discovery or archives. Contemporaneous confirmation of the prediction arrives with a lag.
• Evidence-shaping interests are not only corporate. The chapter cites Séralini et al. (2012) as a controversy that drove transparency (p. 660). That GM-maize feeding study was retracted in November 2013 [S47]. An EU-funded two-year replication (G-TwYST) found “lack of adverse effects” (Steinberg et al., February 2019) [S48].

Verdict: held up. The prediction has been borne out across further industries (PFAS, glyphosate, sugar, fossil fuels). It is now supported by peer-reviewed cross-industry typologies. The main limits: the evidence is mostly retrospective, and the “manufactured doubt” charge is itself disputed in specific cases.

Implications for weight. Strong weight as a pattern to look for (digest insight 6). When hazard evidence depends on data generated or controlled by the product’s owner, expect this repertoire:

• research control and suppression;
• ghostwriting;
• reframing of proof standards;
• reassuring language.

Pair the pattern with the counterweight that interested parties on all sides can shape evidence.

Claim 4. Methods are biased toward false negatives; absent Bradford Hill features are not robust evidence against causation; misuse of significance testing persists#

Original claim (pp. 652–654). Under multicausality:

• missing Bradford Hill features (consistency, specificity, dose-response, plausibility and coherence) are weak grounds for dismissal;
• “the absence of the criteria is not robust evidence that there is no causal association”;
• epidemiology and toxicology contain “systemic biases towards not finding a causal link”;
• “the misinterpretation of statistical significance and the relative neglect of confidence intervals continue”.

Subsequent developments

Statistical significance. Mainstream statistics moved strongly toward the chapter’s position.

• The American Statistical Association’s first formal statement on p-values (Wasserstein and Lazar, The American Statistician, 2016) [S49] was followed by a special issue, “Moving to a World Beyond ‘p < 0.05’” (March 2019) [S50].
• More than 800 scientists signed “Scientists rise up against statistical significance” (Amrhein, Greenland and McShane, Nature, 20 March 2019) [S51].
• An ASA President’s task force (Benjamini et al., Annals of Applied Statistics, September 2021) defended properly applied p-values [S52].
• A 2026 meta-research preprint of about 35 million records finds “pervasive entrenchment of P-values”. Between 94% and 98% of articles reporting p-values report at least one ≤ .05 (Choi et al., medRxiv, 16 January 2026; not peer-reviewed) [S53].
• The “misuse persists” claim has held up.

Bradford Hill criteria. The criteria are being reinterpreted in ways that partly support and partly cut against the chapter.

• Supporting:
• Fedak et al. (2015) argue that molecular, mechanistic and exposure data change how each criterion should be read [S54].
• EFSA (2021) confirmed that non-monotonic dose responses occur [S11]. A missing monotonic dose-response therefore cannot be decisive.
• IARC’s 2019 Preamble lets strong mechanistic evidence raise classifications [S15].
• Cutting the other way: a 2024 method for causal systematic reviews drops analogy and coherence because of their low “uniqueness” and “definitiveness” (Shimonovich et al., Research Synthesis Methods) [S55]. The chapter says analogy “becomes more necessary” under complexity (p. 653).

False negatives in hazard testing. BPA is the main post-2013 test case.

• The US CLARITY-BPA programme ran a guideline-compliant two-year rat study alongside academic studies.
• The guideline “core” study found “no BPA-related effects … in the in-life and non-histopathology data” (Camacho et al., July 2019) [S56].
• The academic studies reported effects in several organs, “many … at the lowest dose tested, 2.5 μg/kg/day”, often non-monotonic (Heindel et al., July 2020) [S57].
• EFSA’s 2023 re-evaluation, which drew on the wider literature, set a tolerable daily intake 20,000 times lower than its 2015 figure [S58].
• The US FDA maintains that “BPA is safe at the current levels occurring in foods” (page updated 20 April 2023) [S59].
• This supports the chapter’s claim that standard guideline designs can miss effects. It does not settle which reading is correct.

The other direction. Research methods also generate false positives.

• A large replication project found statistically significant results in only 36% of 100 replications of psychology studies (Open Science Collaboration, Science, 28 August 2015) [S60].
• Seventy-two authors proposed tightening the default threshold to p < 0.005 specifically to reduce false positives (Benjamin et al., Nature Human Behaviour, 2018) [S61].
• Within the chapter’s own example, a 2024 simulation showed that recall error and selection bias alone can produce a spurious excess risk among heavy users in a case-control study: a simulated OR of 1.91 with no true effect, against Interphone’s observed 1.40 (Bouaoun et al., Epidemiology, May 2024; claim 9) [S62].

Verdict: partly held up. Two parts have held up and are now mainstream: the critique of significance misuse, and the asymmetry argument about causal criteria. The claim of a systematic bias toward false negatives holds for specific designs: low-powered hazard studies, guideline tests with limited endpoints, and “no significant difference” read as “no effect”. As a general claim about epidemiology and toxicology it is one-sided. The replication crisis and recall-bias work show that errors run in both directions.

Implications for weight. Strong weight for:

• “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” (digest insight 3);
• the asymmetry of causal criteria (digest insight 4).

Moderate weight for the claim of a systematic false-negative bias. A lens should ask which error each specific design is prone to, rather than assume one direction.

Claim 5. Funding bias (results tracking the funder) is pervasive and “routinely” affects cost–benefit analysis#

Original claim (p. 654). Funding bias “has been observed in the tobacco literature … and then identified in other fields such as pharmaceuticals … the food and beverage industry … BPA … mobile phones … biomedics … GMOs”. It is also found “in cost‑benefit analysis where the direction of bias is routinely in the direction of those who fund the study”. The chapter itself says “the explanation for this bias is not clear”.

Subsequent developments

• Drugs and devices (strongest evidence). The 2017 Cochrane update (75 papers) found that industry-sponsored studies more often had:
• favourable efficacy results (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.17–1.37);
• favourable conclusions (RR 1.34, 1.19–1.51).

There was “no difference in harms results” (RR 1.37, 0.64–2.93). Industry studies did not have higher risk of bias on standard domains and were more often low-risk on blinding (Lundh et al., 16 February 2017) [S63]. The effect therefore operates through framing, comparators and interpretation more than through crude methodological flaws. - Food and beverages. - Systematic reviews of sugar-sweetened beverages with food-industry conflicts were five times more likely to conclude no association with weight gain (RR 5.0, 1.3–19.3; Bes-Rastrollo et al., PLoS Medicine, 31 December 2013) [S64]. - A 2016 meta-analysis across nutrition studies found favourable conclusions more likely with industry sponsorship, but not significantly so (RR 1.31, 0.99–1.72; Chartres, Fabbri and Bero, JAMA Internal Medicine) [S65]. - GM crops. In 672 studies of Bt-crop efficacy and durability, 40% had conflicts of interest. Conflicts were associated with a “50% higher frequency of outcomes favorable” to the company (Guillemaud et al., PLoS ONE, December 2016) [S66]. - Agenda effects. Sponsorship shapes which questions are asked, not only the answers (Fabbri et al. 2018) [S39]. - Cost–benefit and cost estimates. - I found no post-2013 systematic study showing that cost–benefit results track the funder “routinely”. - Retrospective studies of regulatory costs (Simpson 2014 [S23]; Kopits et al. 2014 on EPA case studies [S67]) find ex ante estimates commonly exceed ex post costs. They debate whether this reflects bias. - For transport megaprojects, Flyvbjerg’s “iron law” (“over budget, over time, over and over again”, 2014) supports systematic underestimation by promoters [S68]. Love and Ahiaga-Dagbui (2018) contest the “strategic misrepresentation” explanation [S69]. - Contested cost-of-inaction estimates for endocrine disrupters (claim 1) illustrate that interest-aligned disputes run in both directions [S24, S25].

Verdict: partly held up. Funding bias is firmly established for drug and device research. It is well supported in sugar-sweetened beverage reviews and GM Bt-crop studies, and weaker or non-significant across nutrition studies in general. “Pervasive” is broadly right as a pattern. “Routinely” in cost–benefit analysis is not evidenced by anything I found. The mechanism the chapter calls “not clear” is now better understood as operating through agenda-setting, comparators and interpretation.

Implications for weight. Moderate-to-strong weight for “who funds and frames the research shapes what is found” (digest insight 5). Weight it more heavily where the product’s owner controls the data. Treat the cost–benefit claim as a plausible hypothesis, not an established lesson.

Claim 6. A “vast ocean of scientific ignorance” around nanotechnology, GM food, mobile-phone radiation and consumer chemicals warrants precaution after credible early warnings; BPA, neonicotinoids and endocrine disrupters are emerging risks for more precautionary action#

Original claim (pp. 644, 655). Where the “knowledge‑to‑ignorance ratio” is low, “as with emerging technologies”, there is a need for “precautionary measures following credible early warnings and for novel research” (p. 655). Named fields: “nanotechnologies, biotechnologies and non‑ionising radiation technologies and chemicals used in consumer and other products”. The Volume 2 chemical cases “primarily illustrate how more precautionary action could be applied to chemical risks emerging now, such as those from Bisphenol A (BPA) and other chemicals, nicotinoid pesticides, and endocrine disrupting substances” (p. 644).

Subsequent developments, by field

Chemical risks (the p. 644 set): mostly toward the chapter’s view.

• BPA.
• EFSA (19 April 2023) set a tolerable daily intake of 0.2 ng/kg bw per day, 20,000 times lower than 2015. It found dietary exposure exceeded it “by two to three orders of magnitude” and concluded “there is a health concern from dietary BPA exposure” [S58].
• The EU banned BPA and other hazardous bisphenols in food-contact materials (Regulation (EU) 2024/3190, adopted 19 December 2024, OJ 31 December 2024). Transitional periods run to 2028–2029 for some articles [S70].
• BfR and EMA formally recorded diverging views from EFSA (April 2023) [S71]. BfR’s own proposed value was about 1,000-fold higher [not re-retrieved].
• US FDA maintains BPA is safe at current levels [S59].
• Neonicotinoids.
• EFSA: “most uses of neonicotinoid pesticides represent a risk to wild bees and honeybees” (28 February 2018) [S72].
• Outdoor uses of three neonicotinoids banned (Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/783, 784 and 785, May 2018); thiacloprid withdrawn in 2020 [S73].
• The Court of Justice held that member states may not use emergency authorisations to permit seeds treated with banned neonicotinoids (C‑162/21, 19 January 2023) [S74].
• France’s Constitutional Council struck down a 2025 law’s derogations for neonicotinoids under the Charter for the Environment (Decision 2025‑891 DC, 7 August 2025) [S75].
• Field evidence is mixed. A three-country field experiment found negative effects on honey bees in Hungary and the UK but positive effects in Germany. There were negative associations for wild-bee reproduction (Woodcock et al., Science, June 2017) [S76].
• The bans had agronomic costs in some places. After the 2013 restriction, English oilseed-rape area fell and farmers sprayed more pyrethroids against flea beetle: 2.0 versus 1.4 applications per crop across two seasons (Scott and Bilsborrow, 2018/2019) [S77]. Sweden saw no major effect on area or yield (Lundin, 2021) [S78].
• Endocrine disrupters.
• Legal criteria adopted for biocides (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100) and pesticides (Regulation (EU) 2018/605) [S79, not re-retrieved].
• New CLP hazard classes for endocrine disruption (human health and environment), PBT/vPvB and PMT/vPvM (Delegated Regulation 2023/707) [S12]. They include a “suspected” category, the graded evidence standard the chapter advocates.
• The Endocrine Society’s second scientific statement (November 2015) broadened the evidence base [S80].
• Consumer chemicals generally: PFAS became the archetype.
• IARC Group 1 for PFOA (November 2023) [S2].
• EU firefighting-foam restriction [S3].
• US drinking-water limits (April 2024), then partial rollback proposals (May 2026) [S4, S29].
• The EU restriction regulation notes PFAS “by far exceed the criterion to be considered very persistent” [S3]. This vindicates the chapter’s persistence-based criteria for action (Box 27.4, criteria 3–5).

Technologies (the p. 655 set): mostly away from the chapter’s view.

• GM food.
• The US National Academies found “no substantiated evidence of a difference in risks to human health” between commercial GE crops and conventional crops, and “no conclusive cause-and-effect evidence of environmental problems” (17 May 2016). It also recommended proactive public input and “funding of diverse approaches” to crop yield [S81].
• EU-funded G-TwYST feeding trials found no adverse effects of NK603 maize [S48].
• The EU’s NGT Regulation treats “category 1” gene-edited plants like conventional plants (Regulation (EU) 2026/1388, 17 June 2026; applies from 17 July 2028). It still states that “a precautionary and science-based approach should guide their governance” and keeps GMO-style assessment for category 2 [S82].
• The regulation also orders an assessment of patenting’s effects on breeders’ access and “the potential risks of market concentration” [S82]. That echoes the chapter’s concern about intellectual property and research access (p. 646).
• Mobile phones. Human evidence has become reassuring; animal evidence still flags tumours (claim 9).
• Nanotechnology. The record is mixed.
• Specific hazards were identified: IARC classed one multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT‑7) as possibly carcinogenic (Group 2B) in October 2014 [S83]. The EU withdrew titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive because “a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out” (Regulation (EU) 2022/63, 14 January 2022) [S84].
• Other assessors disagreed: Health Canada found “no conclusive scientific evidence” of concern (page dated 6 April 2023) [S85].
• Nanoforms were brought explicitly into REACH (Regulation (EU) 2018/1881) [S86].
• I found no authoritative assessment reporting population-level harm from engineered nanomaterials by 2026.
• A telling finding for the “ocean of ignorance” framing: of more than 10,000 nanosafety papers since 2001, “most of these studies … do not offer any kind of clear statement on the safety of nanomaterials” (Krug, Angewandte Chemie, October 2014) [S87]. Low knowledge was partly a problem of research quality, not only quantity.

Verdict: partly held up. The chemical warnings (BPA, neonicotinoids, EDCs and persistent consumer chemicals) have mostly moved toward the chapter’s view in EU regulation. They remain contested elsewhere, and neonicotinoid bans involved real trade-offs. The technology warnings grouped as a “vast ocean of ignorance” have diverged:

• GM food and mobile phones moved toward reassurance on human health;
• nanotechnology yielded specific, not general, hazards.

The knowledge-to-ignorance ratio proved hard to judge in advance. The chapter put four very different fields in one class.

Implications for weight.

• Strong weight: the knowledge/ignorance distinction and persistence-based criteria for action (digest insight 9). They proved their worth for PFAS.
• Little weight: the chapter’s choice of emerging hazards as predictions.
• For a lens: novelty alone is a weak signal. Persistence, bioaccumulation, irreversibility and wide dispersal (Box 27.4, criteria 3–7) did better at picking the cases that later warranted action.

Claim 7. Early action stimulates innovation; late action consolidated monopolies “at unrealistically low prices” and kept smarter substitutes out#

Original claim (p. 659). “Several of the case studies (asbestos, lead, mercury, PCBs, CFCs, benzene) indicate that early actions can stimulate innovations and conversely illustrate how late actions have consolidated technological monopolies for products, at unrealistically low prices, which served to keep smarter substitutes out of the markets for many years.” The chapter cites the Porter hypothesis.

Subsequent developments

The innovation half.

• The major reviews support the weak form only:
• “there is evidence that environmental regulations induce innovation in clean technologies, but the resulting benefits do not appear to be large enough to outweigh the costs of regulations for the regulated entities” (Dechezleprêtre and Sato, REEP, 2017) [S88];
• a meta-analysis of 103 studies and over 2,000 estimates found “considerable heterogeneity” and “the most likely scenario is statistical insignificance”, with positive effects more likely at country level (Cohen and Tubb, JAERE, 2018) [S89];
• Ambec et al. (2013) reached similar conclusions at the “Porter hypothesis at 20” stage [S90].
• Montreal Protocol. It is on track: ozone recovery to 1980 values by about 2040 for most of the world, 2045 over the Arctic and 2066 over the Antarctic (UNEP/WMO assessment, 9 January 2023) [S91]. But the HFC substitutes stimulated by early CFC action were potent greenhouse gases. They required the 2016 Kigali Amendment, “estimated to avoid 0.3–0.5°C of warming by 2100” [S91].
• Regrettable substitution recurred.
• BPA substitutes BPS and BPF “are as hormonally active as BPA” (Rochester and Bolden, EHP, 2015) [S92].
• The EU’s 2024 ban therefore covers “other bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives” with hazardous classifications [S70].
• The EU’s PFAS foam restriction was prompted partly by “concern raised with regard to the substitution of firefighting foams containing [PFOA] with other fluorine-based ones” [S3].
• Group-based restriction is the institutional response. The chapter does not discuss the problem.
• Substitutes can be available when regulators act. ECHA’s socio-economic committee judged the PFAS-foam restriction’s costs, “about EUR 7 billion over a period of thirty years”, to be proportionate, with review clauses where alternatives are uncertain [S3].

The lock-in half. This gained strong new evidence from one of the chapter’s own cases, asbestos. The US EPA’s 2024 rule on chrysotile asbestos (89 FR 21970, 28 March 2024) found [S93]:

• eight US chlor-alkali plants still used asbestos diaphragms, about one-third of national capacity;
• the facilities “range in age from 42 to 83 years old”;
• conversion would cost “approximately $2.8 billion to $3.4 billion”;
• membrane cells are “more energy efficient … so those conversions are expected to result in savings”;
• EPA allowed a staggered 5–8–12-year phase-out.

This is almost exactly the mechanism the chapter describes: late action lets a hazardous technology become embedded in long-lived capital, while a better substitute exists.

Verdict: partly held up. Lock-in and delayed substitution are well supported. The asbestos rule is a clear post-2013 illustration. “Early action stimulates innovation” holds in the weak sense. The implied net gain, and the assumption that substitutes will be “smarter”, are not supported in general. Regrettable substitution and risk–risk trade-offs (claim 6, neonicotinoids) recur and need to be designed for.

Implications for weight.

• Strong weight: the lock-in mechanism (digest insight 8, which could be upgraded from “moderate/suggestive”).
• Moderate weight: “regulation induces substitution and innovation”.
• Low weight: any claim that precaution pays for itself or reliably produces better substitutes.

A lens should look for class-based rules and alternatives assessment as safeguards against regrettable substitution.

Claim 8. Participation recommendations “do not appear to be reflected in most existing international and European arrangements”; European authorities are improving, including public access to company data#

Original claim (pp. 659–660). Authoritative bodies recommend public involvement “at all stages of the risk analysis process”, especially problem framing (Fig. 27.2; NAS 2009). These recommendations “do not appear to be reflected in most existing international and European arrangements”, although European authorities are “continuously improving”. Examples are stakeholder platforms, consultation on questions put to assessors, and “improved public access to the scientific data submitted by companies … (EFSA, 2013)”.

Subsequent developments

• EU food-chain transparency. This went well beyond the 2013 baseline. Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 (20 June 2019; applied from 27 March 2021) [S94]:
• requires proactive publication of the studies and data supporting applications;
• creates a database of studies commissioned by business operators (Art. 32b);
• requires EFSA to “consult stakeholders and the public” on submitted studies (Art. 32c(2));
• allows Commission-triggered verification studies where there are “serious controversies or conflicting results”;
• sets a risk-communication objective of transparent information “from the framing of requests for scientific advice” onward.

Its recitals credit the European Citizens’ Initiative on glyphosate with confirming “concerns regarding transparency with respect to studies commissioned by the industry” (recital 27). This is a direct lesson-learning response of the kind the chapter hoped for. - Access to data through the courts. The General Court ruled on access to glyphosate toxicity studies in Tweedale v EFSA (T‑716/14, 7 March 2019) [S95]. - Access to justice. After the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee found the EU non-compliant (ACCC/C/2008/32), the EU widened NGOs’ right to request internal review of EU acts (Regulation (EU) 2021/1767, 6 October 2021) [S96]. The route has produced results: in PAN Europe v Commission (C‑316/24 P, 18 December 2025) the Court of Justice partly annulled the Commission’s refusal to review its renewal of the insecticide cypermethrin [S97]. - Participation in framing. Pre-registered protocols subject to public consultation now exist for some high-profile assessments; EFSA’s 2023 BPA opinion used “a pre-established protocol … that had undergone public consultation” [S58]. The US National Academies urged regulators to “proactively seek input from the public” on new genetic-engineering technologies (2016) [S81]. I found no evidence that structured public participation in framing hazard questions has become standard in EU chemical regulation or in international food-standard bodies. I did not examine Codex or the FAO/WHO food-additives committee (JECFA) arrangements directly. - Evidence that participation improves outcomes. I found none, positive or negative, specific to hazard assessment.

Verdict: partly held up.

• The “improving” half is strengthened. EU transparency and legal standing advanced substantially, driven by the glyphosate controversy the chapter anticipated.
• The “not reflected” half is only partly true now. EU food law requires transparency from framing onward and consultation on evidence, but not participatory framing as in Fig. 27.2.
• International arrangements were not checked.
• The effect of participation on outcomes remains untested.

Implications for weight. Moderate weight (digest insight 12). The durable lesson is narrower than the chapter’s: what advanced was disclosure of underlying data, registration of commissioned studies and legal standing to challenge decisions. These are checkable features for a lens. Participatory framing remains a normative recommendation with thin evidence.

Claim 9. The Interphone confusion arose because scientists did not clearly separate suggestive evidence of risk from proof of causation#

Original claim (p. 657). Commentators’ confusion arose “because scientists were not transparent and clear about the difference between the very strong evidence needed to establish ‘causality’ and the suggestive evidence of plausible risks”. The chapter quotes Interphone as concluding: “There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less of menigioma, at the highest level of exposure….. (but) biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusion we can draw from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation.” The BBC reported “No proof of mobile cancer risk” and The Telegraph “Half an hour of mobile use a day increases brain cancer risk” (17 May 2010).

Check against the published abstract. The abstract (Interphone Study Group, International Journal of Epidemiology 39:675–694, published 17 May 2010) [S98] reports:

• a reduced odds ratio for ever-regular users (glioma OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.70–0.94), “possibly reflecting participation bias or other methodological limitations”;
• no elevation at 10 or more years since first use;
• OR 1.40 (1.03–1.89) for glioma in the top decile of recalled call time, “but there are implausible values of reported use in this group”.

Its Conclusions read: “Overall, no increase in risk of glioma or meningioma was observed with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma at the highest exposure levels, but biases and error prevent a causal interpretation.”

• The chapter’s quotation does not match this wording and omits the first sentence. It appears to paraphrase the paper’s discussion; I could not retrieve the full text to confirm.
• The abstract does separate the overall null finding from the heavy-user signal and its caveats. That weakens the charge that the scientists were unclear. The divergent headlines look at least as much like selective reporting as like a failure of scientific communication.

Subsequent evidence

• Bias simulation. Monte Carlo modelling with Interphone’s own validation data showed that recall and selection biases produce “a J-shaped relationship perfectly compatible with the observed relationship”, including a spurious OR of 1.91 in heavy users, under no true effect. This “shifts the overall assessment to making it less likely that heavy mobile phone use is causally related to an increased glioma risk” (Bouaoun et al., Epidemiology, May 2024) [S62].
• Prospective cohort. COSMOS (264,574 participants in five countries) found a hazard ratio per 100 regression-calibrated hours of 1.00 (0.98–1.02) for glioma. More than 15 years of use was not associated with increased risk (Feychting et al., Environment International, March 2024) [S99].
• Young people. MOBI-Kids found “no evidence of a causal association” but could not rule out “a small increased risk” because of biases (Castaño-Vinyals et al., Environment International, online 30 December 2021) [S100].
• WHO-commissioned systematic review. “Moderate certainty evidence that [mobile phone use] likely does not increase the risk of glioma, meningioma, acoustic neuroma, pituitary tumours, and salivary gland tumours in adults, or of paediatric brain tumours” (Karipidis et al., Environment International, 30 August 2024) [S101].
• Incidence trends. Australian brain-tumour rates “remained stable” through the period of mass mobile phone use (Karipidis et al., BMJ Open, December 2018) [S102].
• Animal evidence (the counterweight).
• A WHO-commissioned animal review rated the certainty of evidence as high for increased glioma and heart schwannomas in male rats. But “none of these findings were dose-dependent when compared to the sham controls” (Mevissen et al., Environment International, April 2025) [S103].
• This builds on the US National Toxicology Program’s 2018 finding of “clear evidence” of heart schwannomas in male rats [S104, not re-retrieved].
• IARC’s 2024 Advisory Group made radiofrequency fields a high-priority re-evaluation, citing “new human cancer and animal cancer evidence” [S105]. I did not confirm whether a meeting has been scheduled.

Verdict: weakened.

• The chapter’s use of Interphone was selective. The abstract’s lead finding was no overall increase in risk.
• The chapter’s diagnosis (unclear scientists) is not well supported by the abstract.
• Subsequent human evidence has moved away from treating the heavy-user signal as “suggestive evidence of plausible risk”. The main remaining uncertainty lies in animal data and very long latencies.
• The general point, that commentators and media conflate “not proven” with “no risk” or “proven risk”, remains valid.

Implications for weight. Low weight for this example. Keep the generic lesson (digest insights 1 and 3): communicate the strength of evidence explicitly, and say who bears the risk of error. Add the lesson this case now teaches: a weak signal can come from recall and selection bias. Suggestive signals need bias analysis before they are treated as early warnings.

Claim 10. Wider use of the precautionary principle, with humility and public engagement, would “help anticipate and minimise many future hazards, while stimulating innovation”#

Original claim (p. 662; also p. 643). “Armed with more humility in the face of scientific uncertainty and ignorance, and supported by broad and effective public engagement, they could apply the precautionary principle more widely. In so doing, they would help anticipate and minimise many future hazards, while stimulating innovation.” Box 27.5 (von Schomberg) adds responsible research and innovation (RRI) as the upstream complement.

Subsequent developments

Uptake and legal resilience of the PP.

• EU courts continued to apply the principle with force:
• Blaise (2019) [S10];
• the neonicotinoid emergency-authorisation ruling (2023) [S74];
• PAN Europe on cypermethrin (2025) [S97].
• France’s Constitutional Council used the constitutional Charter for the Environment to strike down neonicotinoid derogations (2025) [S75].
• The principle appears in new legislation, including the 2026 NGT Regulation [S82].
• The EU’s “safe and sustainable by design” framework (Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/2510, 8 December 2022; revised by Recommendation (EU) 2026/510, 6 March 2026) [S106] is a direct attempt to combine precaution with innovation. It is close to the chapter’s own aspiration. Scheringer, Arp and Cousins (2026) propose it, with class-based phase-outs, as a remedy for repeated regulatory failure on global pollutants [S107].

The countervailing turn.

• The “innovation principle” entered EU law in Horizon Europe: activities should “inspire innovation-friendly regulation, in line with the innovation principle” (Regulation (EU) 2021/695, recital 6) [S108].
• The Draghi report on EU competitiveness (9 September 2024) stated that “the EU’s extensive and stringent regulatory environment (exemplified by policies based on the precautionary principle) may, as a side effect, restrain innovation”. It recommended striking “the right balance between the principle of precaution and the principle of innovation” [S109].
• The Commission’s 2025 Chemicals Industry Action Plan and omnibus followed [S30]. So did the 2026 NGT Regulation’s partial deregulation [S82].
• In the US, EO 14303 disfavours “overly precautionary assumptions” [S16], and EO 14154 withdrew carbon-cost valuation [S26].
• The policy climate since about 2019 has moved toward “less” precaution on both sides of the Atlantic. The EU case is mixed: precautionary chemical measures (BPA, PFAS foams, new hazard classes) continued alongside simplification.

RRI (Box 27.5). Horizon Europe retains RRI language, asking that citizens and civil society be involved “in co-designing and co-creating responsible research and innovation (RRI) agendas” (recital 51) [S108]. Its leading proponents, including von Schomberg, described the project in 2021 as “an unfinished journey” (Owen, von Schomberg and Macnaghten) [S110].

Evidence on outcomes. The post-2013 record contains cases that fit the claim:

• Montreal Protocol ozone recovery;
• PFAS-foam substitution;
• asbestos-diaphragm replacement by more efficient membranes;
• EU action on BPA and neonicotinoid risks to bees.

It also contains cases that cut against it:

• GM food and mobile-phone concerns that later evidence did not substantiate for human health;
• neonicotinoid bans that increased pyrethroid spraying in some countries;
• regrettable substitution.

I found no systematic study that tests whether wider application of precaution produced net reductions in harm alongside increased innovation. The Porter-hypothesis literature (claim 7) is the nearest proxy, and it supports only the weak form.

Verdict: contested. The claim is a normative forecast, not a finding. Post-2013 events supply examples for both sides. Official EU and US policy moved, unevenly, against the chapter’s direction. Courts and parts of EU chemicals regulation sustained it. The chapter argues only for “more” despite its title, and it gives no guidance on risk–risk trade-offs, regrettable substitution or when to lift measures. Those were exactly the points on which post-2013 critics and policymakers pressed.

Implications for weight. Treat as the author’s position, not a lesson. The chapter’s durable contributions to a lens are its tools:

• purpose-specific evidence thresholds;
• criteria for action;
• the knowledge/ignorance distinction;
• the participatory risk-analysis cycle;
• attention to who bears costs and errors.

Its conclusion that wider precaution will both prevent harm and stimulate innovation should be treated as a hypothesis to test case by case, alongside the innovation-principle counter-claim.

Sources#

Dates are publication dates unless stated; “accessed” dates are 26 September 2026. Abstracts were read via Europe PMC unless stated.

Documentary evidence of product defence and corporate influence - [S1] Gaber, N., Bero, L., Woodruff, T. J. The Devil they Knew: Chemical Documents Analysis of Industry Influence on PFAS Science. Annals of Global Health 89(1):37 (1 June 2023). https://doi.org/10.5334/aogh.4013 - [S5] Legg, T., Hatchard, J., Gilmore, A. B. The Science for Profit Model—How and why corporations influence science and the use of science in policy and practice. PLoS ONE 16:e0253272 (23 June 2021). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0253272 - [S6] Goldberg, R. F., Vandenberg, L. N. The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health. Environmental Health 20:33 (26 March 2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00723-0 - [S7] Gilmore, A. B., et al. Defining and conceptualising the commercial determinants of health. Lancet 401:1194–1213 (23 March 2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00013-2 - [S41] Williams, G. M., Kroes, R., Munro, I. C. Retraction notice to “Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate, for humans” [Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 31 (2000) 117–165]. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 106006 (online 4 December 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2025.106006 (notice text not retrieved; record via Europe PMC PMID 41428335) - [S42] Borgert, C. J., et al. Retraction of the landmark glyphosate safety publication by Williams, Kroes and Munro (2000) should be reversed. EXCLI Journal 25:1107–1116 (14 July 2026). https://doi.org/10.17179/excli2026-9644 - [S43] Moretto, A., Boobis, A. R. Retraction of Williams et al. (2000) does not affect the conclusions of the 2016 FAO/WHO JMPR evaluation of glyphosate. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 168:106065 (4 March 2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2026.106065 (title and record only) - [S44] Kearns, C. E., Schmidt, L. A., Glantz, S. A. Sugar Industry and Coronary Heart Disease Research: A Historical Analysis of Internal Industry Documents. JAMA Internal Medicine 176:1680–1685 (November 2016). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.5394 - [S45] Supran, G., Rahmstorf, S., Oreskes, N. Assessing ExxonMobil’s global warming projections. Science 379:eabk0063 (January 2023). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abk0063 - [S46] WHO. WHO Statement on Philip Morris funded Foundation for a Smoke-Free World (28 September 2017). https://www.who.int/news/item/28-09-2017-who-statement-on-philip-morris-funded-foundation-for-a-smoke-free-world

Precautionary principle: reception, law and policy - [S8] Garnett, K., Parsons, D. J. Multi-Case Review of the Application of the Precautionary Principle in European Union Law and Case Law. Risk Analysis 37(3):502–516 (online 18 May 2016; issue 2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12633 - [S9] Löfstedt, R. The precautionary principle in the EU: Why a formal review is long overdue. Risk Management 16(3):137–163 (August 2014). https://doi.org/10.1057/rm.2014.7 (title and record only) - [S10] Court of Justice (Grand Chamber). Case C‑616/17, Criminal proceedings against Mathieu Blaise and Others, judgment of 1 October 2019 (CELEX 62017CJ0616). https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-616/17 ; text retrieved via http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62017CJ0616 - [S16] Executive Order 14303, Restoring Gold Standard Science. Signed 23 May 2025; 90 FR 22601 (29 May 2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/29/2025-09802/restoring-gold-standard-science ; full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-05-29/html/2025-09802.htm - [S17] Kratsios, M. Sound policy demands sound science. Science 389:7 (24 June 2025). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz9562 (title and record only) - [S18] Michaels, D., Wagner, W. Fool’s gold. Science 388:1245 (19 June 2025). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz3920 (title and record only) - [S19] Goldman, G., Barbati-Dajches, J. The US executive order establishing “Gold Standard Science” does anything but. BMJ 389:r1173 (5 June 2025). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.r1173 (title and record only) - [S20] Thorp, H. H. Sluggishness and defensiveness helped enable an executive order on research integrity. Science 389:9 (24 June 2025). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz9553 (title and record only) - [S26] Executive Order 14154, Unleashing American Energy. Signed 20 January 2025; published 29 January 2025, sec. 6. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/29/2025-01956/unleashing-american-energy ; full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-29/html/2025-01956.htm - [S27] Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, Pub. L. 114‑182 (22 June 2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576 [not re-retrieved] - [S28] US EPA. Procedures for Chemical Risk Evaluation Under TSCA, proposed rule (23 September 2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/23/2025-18431/procedures-for-chemical-risk-evaluation-under-the-toxic-substances-control-act-tsca ; see also EPA, Formaldehyde updated draft risk calculation memorandum, notice (3 December 2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/03/2025-21776/formaldehyde-updated-draft-risk-calculation-memorandum-notice-of-availability-and-request-for - [S30] European Commission. A European Chemicals Industry Action Plan, COM(2025) 530 final (8 July 2025). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/52025DC0530 ; Omnibus proposal COM(2025) 531 (8 July 2025), CELEX 52025PC0531 ; ECHA Basic Regulation proposal COM(2025) 386, CELEX 52025PC0386. REACH-revision search: EU Publications Office SPARQL endpoint, https://publications.europa.eu/webapi/rdf/sparql (queried 26 September 2026). - [S31] Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (anaw 2). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/anaw/2015/2/contents [not re-retrieved] - [S32] UN General Assembly. The Pact for the Future, A/RES/79/1, Annex II: Declaration on Future Generations (22 September 2024). https://undocs.org/A/RES/79/1 [not re-retrieved] - [S33] European Commission. Glenn Micallef, Commissioner for Intergenerational Fairness, Youth, Culture and Sport (from 1 December 2024). https://commission.europa.eu/about/organisation/college-commissioners/glenn-micallef_en [not re-retrieved] - [S106] Commission Recommendation (EU) 2022/2510 establishing a European assessment framework for “safe and sustainable by design” chemicals and materials (8 December 2022), CELEX 32022H2510 ; Commission Recommendation (EU) 2026/510 revising that framework (6 March 2026), CELEX 32026H0510. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32022H2510 (identified via SPARQL; texts not read) - [S107] Scheringer, M., Arp, H. P. H., Cousins, I. T. Boundaries, Limits, Global Threats—How Can the Impacts of Global Synthetic Pollutants Be Reduced? Environmental Science & Technology 60:4499–4505 (2 February 2026). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c13807 - [S108] Regulation (EU) 2021/695 establishing Horizon Europe, recitals 6 and 51 (28 April 2021). http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2021/695/oj ; text via http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32021R0695 - [S109] Draghi, M. The future of European competitiveness, Part B: In-depth analysis and recommendations (9 September 2024), PDF pp. 244 and 322. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/ec1409c1-d4b4-4882-8bdd-3519f86bbb92_en?filename=The%20future%20of%20European%20competitiveness_%20In-depth%20analysis%20and%20recommendations_0.pdf - [S110] Owen, R., von Schomberg, R., Macnaghten, P. An unfinished journey? Reflections on a decade of responsible research and innovation. Journal of Responsible Innovation 8(2):217–233 (4 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2021.1948789 (title and record only) - [S22] Chartres, N., Sass, J. B., Gee, D., et al. Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions. Environmental Health 21:123 (5 December 2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00926-z

Research funding and research agendas - [S34] Hansen, S. F., Gee, D. Adequate and anticipatory research on the potential hazards of emerging technologies: a case of myopia and inertia? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 68(9):890–895 (online 9 June 2014). https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204019 ; open full text: https://europepmc.org/articles/PMC4145456 (Table 1 read) - [S35] National Nanotechnology Initiative. Supplement to the President’s 2015 Budget, p. 15 of PDF. https://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/pub_resource/nni_fy15_budget_supplement.pdf - [S36] National Nanotechnology Initiative. Supplement to the President’s 2026 Budget, Tables 2–4 and PCA 5 section. https://www.nano.gov/sites/default/files/NNI-FY26-Budget-Supplement.pdf - [S37] 7 U.S.C. §5921(g)(2), Biotechnology risk assessment research (current text). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/5921 - [S38] Marx-Stoelting, P., et al. A walk in the PARC: developing and implementing 21st century chemical risk assessment in Europe. Archives of Toxicology 97:893–908 (16 January 2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-022-03435-7 - [S39] Fabbri, A., Lai, A., Grundy, Q., Bero, L. A. The Influence of Industry Sponsorship on the Research Agenda: A Scoping Review. American Journal of Public Health 108(11):e9–e16 (25 September 2018). https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2018.304677 - [S40] Grandjean, P. Paracelsus Revisited: The Dose Concept in a Complex World. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology 119:126–132 (June 2016). https://doi.org/10.1111/bcpt.12622

Statistics, causal inference and evidence standards - [S11] EFSA Scientific Committee. Opinion on the impact of non-monotonic dose responses on EFSA’s human health risk assessments. EFSA Journal 19:e06877 (20 October 2021). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6877 - [S13] EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal 15:e04971 (August 2017). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4971 (record only) - [S14] EFSA Scientific Committee. Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments. EFSA Journal 16:e05123 (January 2018). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123 (record only) - [S15] Samet, J. M., et al. The IARC Monographs: Updated Procedures for Modern and Transparent Evidence Synthesis in Cancer Hazard Identification. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 112:30–37 (January 2020). https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz169 (record only) - [S49] Wasserstein, R. L., Lazar, N. A. The ASA Statement on p-Values: Context, Process, and Purpose. The American Statistician 70:129–133 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2016.1154108 (Crossref record) - [S50] Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., Lazar, N. A. Moving to a World Beyond “p < 0.05”. The American Statistician 73(sup1):1–19 (20 March 2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913 (Crossref record) - [S51] Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., McShane, B. Scientists rise up against statistical significance. Nature 567:305–307 (March 2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00857-9 - [S52] Benjamini, Y., et al. The ASA president’s task force statement on statistical significance and replicability. Annals of Applied Statistics 15(3) (September 2021). https://doi.org/10.1214/21-AOAS1501 (Crossref record) - [S53] Choi, J., Lee, K., Chavalarias, D., Shin, J. I., Ioannidis, J. P. A. Evolution of Reporting P-values Across the Biomedical Literature, 1990–2025: an Updated Meta-Research Study. medRxiv preprint (16 January 2026), not peer-reviewed. https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.01.14.26344149 - [S54] Fedak, K. M., Bernal, A., Capshaw, Z. A., Gross, S. Applying the Bradford Hill criteria in the 21st century. Emerging Themes in Epidemiology 12:14 (30 September 2015). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12982-015-0037-4 - [S55] Shimonovich, M., Thomson, H., Pearce, A., Katikireddi, S. V. Applying Bradford Hill to assessing causality in systematic reviews: A transparent approach using process tracing. Research Synthesis Methods 15(6):826–838 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1730 - [S56] Camacho, L., et al. A two-year toxicology study of bisphenol A (BPA) in Sprague-Dawley rats: CLARITY-BPA core study results. Food and Chemical Toxicology 132:110728 (July 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2019.110728 - [S57] Heindel, J. J., et al. Data integration, analysis, and interpretation of eight academic CLARITY-BPA studies. Reproductive Toxicology 98:29–60 (July 2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2020.05.014 - [S60] Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:aac4716 (28 August 2015). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 (Crossref record; 36% figure from memory of the paper) - [S61] Benjamin, D. J., et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nature Human Behaviour 2:6–10 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0189-z (record only)

Funding bias and cost analysis - [S23] Simpson, R. D. Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation? Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 5(2):315–332 (June 2014). https://doi.org/10.1515/jbca-2014-0027 - [S24] Trasande, L., et al. Estimating burden and disease costs of exposure to endocrine-disrupting chemicals in the European Union. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 100:1245–1255 (5 March 2015). https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2014-4324 - [S25] Bond, G. G., Dietrich, D. R. Human cost burden of exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals. A critical review. Archives of Toxicology 91:2745–2762 (20 May 2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-017-1985-y - [S63] Lundh, A., Lexchin, J., Mintzes, B., Schroll, J. B., Bero, L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews MR000033 (16 February 2017). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3 ; journal version: Intensive Care Medicine 44:1603–1612 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7 - [S64] Bes-Rastrollo, M., Schulze, M. B., Ruiz-Canela, M., Martinez-Gonzalez, M. A. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain. PLoS Medicine 10:e1001578 (31 December 2013). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578 - [S65] Chartres, N., Fabbri, A., Bero, L. A. Association of Industry Sponsorship With Outcomes of Nutrition Studies. JAMA Internal Medicine 176:1769–1777 (December 2016). https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.6721 - [S66] Guillemaud, T., Lombaert, E., Bourguet, D. Conflicts of Interest in GM Bt Crop Efficacy and Durability Studies. PLoS ONE 11:e0167777 (15 December 2016). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167777 - [S67] Kopits, E., McGartland, A., Morgan, C., Pasurka, C., et al. Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach. Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis 5(2):173–193 (June 2014). https://doi.org/10.1515/jbca-2014-0024 ; see also Fraas, A., Kopits, E., Wolverton, A. A Review of Retrospective Cost Analyses. REEP 17(1):22–42 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1086/723595 (not read) - [S68] Flyvbjerg, B. What You Should Know about Megaprojects and Why: An Overview. Project Management Journal 45(2):6–19 (April 2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21409 - [S69] Love, P. E. D., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D. D. Debunking fake news in a post-truth era: The plausible untruths of cost underestimation in transport infrastructure projects. Transportation Research Part A 113:357–368 (July 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2018.04.019 (title and record only)

Chemicals: BPA, PFAS, EDCs, neonicotinoids, glyphosate, asbestos - [S2] Zahm, S., et al. Carcinogenicity of perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid. Lancet Oncology 25:16–17 (30 November 2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00622-8 (record only) - [S3] Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1988 amending Annex XVII to REACH as regards PFAS in firefighting foams (2 October 2025), recitals 2, 5, 17–18. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32025R1988 - [S4] US EPA. PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, final rule (26 April 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/26/2024-07773/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water-regulation - [S29] US EPA. Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels, proposed rule (20 May 2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/20/2026-10086/extending-the-compliance-deadline-for-the-pfoa-and-pfos-maximum-contaminant-levels ; Rescission of Regulatory Determinations … for Four PFAS Substances, proposed rule (20 May 2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/20/2026-10085/rescission-of-regulatory-determinations-and-removal-of-related-provisions-for-four-pfas-substances - [S12] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2023/707 amending Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 as regards hazard classes and criteria (19 December 2022; OJ L 93, 31 March 2023). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32023R0707 - [S58] EFSA CEP Panel. Re-evaluation of the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs. EFSA Journal 21(4):6857 (19 April 2023). https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.6857 - [S59] US FDA. Bisphenol A (BPA): Use in Food Contact Application (page last updated 20 April 2023). https://www.fda.gov/food/food-packaging-other-substances-come-contact-food-information-consumers/bisphenol-bpa-use-food-contact-application - [S70] Commission Regulation (EU) 2024/3190 on the use of bisphenol A and other bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives … in food contact materials (19 December 2024; OJ L 31 December 2024). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32024R3190 - [S71] EFSA. Bisphenol topic page, listing joint EFSA–BfR and EFSA–EMA reports on the 2023 re-evaluation (April 2023). https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/bisphenol (BfR’s proposed value not re-retrieved) - [S72] EFSA. Neonicotinoids: risks to bees confirmed (28 February 2018). https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/180228 - [S73] European Commission, DG SANTE. Neonicotinoids (regulatory history; Implementing Regulations (EU) 2018/783, 2018/784, 2018/785; thiacloprid). https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/approval-active-substances-safeners-and-synergists/renewal-approval/neonicotinoids_en - [S74] Court of Justice. Case C‑162/21, Pesticide Action Network Europe and Others, judgment of 19 January 2023. https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-162/21 (holding as summarised on the Commission page [S73]; judgment text not re-retrieved) - [S75] Conseil constitutionnel. Décision n° 2025‑891 DC (7 August 2025). https://www.conseil-constitutionnel.fr/decision/2025/2025891DC.htm (read via a fetch tool’s summary) - [S76] Woodcock, B. A., et al. Country-specific effects of neonicotinoid pesticides on honey bees and wild bees. Science 356:1393–1395 (June 2017). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1190 - [S77] Scott, C., Bilsborrow, P. E. The impact of the EU neonicotinoid seed-dressing ban on oilseed rape production in England. Pest Management Science 75:125–133 (online 9 October 2018). https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.5189 - [S78] Lundin, O. Consequences of the neonicotinoid seed treatment ban on oilseed rape production—what can be learnt from the Swedish experience? Pest Management Science 77:3815–3819 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1002/ps.6361 - [S79] Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 (biocides ED criteria), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg_del/2017/2100/oj ; Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 (plant protection products ED criteria), http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2018/605/oj [not re-retrieved] - [S80] Gore, A. C., et al. EDC-2: The Endocrine Society’s Second Scientific Statement on Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals. Endocrine Reviews 36:E1–E150 (November 2015). https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2015-1010 (record only) - [S21] Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2660 renewing the approval of glyphosate (28 November 2023). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32023R2660 (identified via SPARQL) - [S92] Rochester, J. R., Bolden, A. L. Bisphenol S and F: A Systematic Review and Comparison of the Hormonal Activity of Bisphenol A Substitutes. Environmental Health Perspectives 123:643–650 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408989 - [S93] US EPA. Asbestos Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulation of Certain Conditions of Use Under TSCA, final rule, 89 FR 21970 (28 March 2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/03/28/2024-05972/asbestos-part-1-chrysotile-asbestos-regulation-of-certain-conditions-of-use-under-the-toxic ; full text: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-03-28/html/2024-05972.htm

GM crops and gene editing - [S47] Retraction notice to “Long term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize”. Food and Chemical Toxicology 63:244 (January 2014; announced November 2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.11.047 ; republished as Séralini et al., Environmental Sciences Europe 26:14 (24 June 2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-014-0014-5 - [S48] Steinberg, P., et al. Lack of adverse effects in subchronic and chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity studies on the glyphosate-resistant genetically modified maize NK603 in Wistar Han RCC rats. Archives of Toxicology 93:1095–1139 (12 February 2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-019-02400-1 - [S81] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects, news release (17 May 2016). https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2016/05/genetically-engineered-crops-experiences-and-prospects-new-report ; report: https://doi.org/10.17226/23395 - [S82] Regulation (EU) 2026/1388 on plants obtained by certain new genomic techniques and their products (17 June 2026; OJ L 26 June 2026; applies from 17 July 2028, Arts 29–31 from 16 July 2026). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32026R1388

Nanotechnology - [S83] Grosse, Y., et al. Carcinogenicity of fluoro-edenite, silicon carbide fibres and whiskers, and carbon nanotubes. Lancet Oncology 15:1427–1428 (October 2014). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(14)71109-X (record only) - [S84] Commission Regulation (EU) 2022/63 as regards the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) (14 January 2022), recitals 11–13. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32022R0063 - [S85] Health Canada. State of the science of titanium dioxide (TiO2) as a food additive (page dated 6 April 2023). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/reports-publications/titanium-dioxide-food-additive-science-report.html - [S86] Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/1881 amending REACH Annexes to address nanoforms (3 December 2018). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32018R1881 (identified via SPARQL) - [S87] Krug, H. F. Nanosafety research—are we on the right track? Angewandte Chemie International Edition 53:12304–12319 (October 2014). https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.201403367

Economics of regulation and innovation; ozone - [S88] Dechezleprêtre, A., Sato, M. The Impacts of Environmental Regulations on Competitiveness. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy 11(2):183–206 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/rex013 (abstract via OpenAlex) - [S89] Cohen, M. A., Tubb, A. The Impact of Environmental Regulation on Firm and Country Competitiveness: A Meta-analysis of the Porter Hypothesis. JAERE 5(2):371–399 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1086/695613 (abstract via OpenAlex) - [S90] Ambec, S., Cohen, M. A., Elgie, S., Lanoie, P. The Porter Hypothesis at 20. REEP 7(1):2–22 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/reep/res016 (record only) - [S91] UNEP. Ozone layer recovery is on track, helping avoid global warming by 0.5°C (9 January 2023). https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/ozone-layer-recovery-track-helping-avoid-global-warming-05degc

Transparency, participation and access to justice - [S94] Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain (20 June 2019; applies from 27 March 2021), recitals 27–28, Arts 32b–32c. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32019R1381 - [S95] General Court. Case T‑716/14, Tweedale v EFSA, judgment of 7 March 2019 (CELEX 62014TJ0716). https://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=T-716/14 (case identified via SPARQL; outcome from prior knowledge, not re-read) - [S96] Regulation (EU) 2021/1767 amending the Aarhus Regulation (6 October 2021), recitals 5–8. http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/32021R1767 - [S97] Court of Justice. Case C‑316/24 P, PAN Europe v Commission (cypermethrin), judgment of 18 December 2025 (CELEX 62024CJ0316). http://publications.europa.eu/resource/celex/62024CJ0316

Mobile phones and brain tumours - [S98] INTERPHONE Study Group. Brain tumour risk in relation to mobile telephone use: results of the INTERPHONE international case-control study. International Journal of Epidemiology 39:675–694 (17 May 2010). https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyq079 ; abstract: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/20483835 - [S62] Bouaoun, L., et al. Effects of Recall and Selection Biases on Modeling Cancer Risk From Mobile Phone Use: Results From a Case-Control Simulation Study. Epidemiology 35:437–446 (May 2024). https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001749 - [S99] Feychting, M., et al. Mobile phone use and brain tumour risk—COSMOS, a prospective cohort study. Environment International 185:108552 (March 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108552 - [S100] Castaño-Vinyals, G., et al. Wireless phone use in childhood and adolescence and neuroepithelial brain tumours: Results from the international MOBI-Kids study. Environment International 160:107069 (online 30 December 2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.107069 - [S101] Karipidis, K., et al. The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies—Part I: Most researched outcomes. Environment International 191:108983 (30 August 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983 - [S102] Karipidis, K., et al. Mobile phone use and incidence of brain tumour histological types, grading or anatomical location: a population-based ecological study. BMJ Open 8:e024489 (December 2018). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024489 - [S103] Mevissen, M., et al. Effects of radiofrequency electromagnetic field exposure on cancer in laboratory animal studies, a systematic review. Environment International 199:109482 (April 2025). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109482 - [S104] US National Toxicology Program. Technical Report 595: Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies in Hsd:Sprague Dawley SD rats exposed to whole-body radio frequency radiation (November 2018). https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/publications/reports/tr/500s/tr595 [not re-retrieved; finding confirmed as quoted in S105] - [S105] IARC. Report of the Advisory Group to Recommend Priorities for the IARC Monographs during 2025–2029 (2024), Table 1 and agent 099. https://monographs.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AGP_Report_2025-2029.pdf ; summary: Berrington de González, A., et al. Lancet Oncology 25:546–548 (April 2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(24)00208-0