Search

There is growing evidence indicating the substantial contribution of man-made products to an increase in the risk of diseases of civilization. In this article, the Belgian Scientific Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Committee gives a critical view on the working of REACH. The current regulatory framework needs to further evolve taking into account data generated using modern science and technology. There is a need for improved assessment process not only before but also after entering the market. Objectivity, transparency, and the follow-up after market access can be optimized. Additionally, no guidance documents exist for regulation of mixture effects. Further, the lengthiness before regulatory action is a big concern. Decision-making often takes several years leading to uncertainties for both producers and end users. A first proposed improvement is the implementation of independent toxicity testing, to assure objectivity, transparency, and check and improve compliance. A "no data, no market" principle could prevent access of hazardous chemicals to the market. Additionally, the introduction of novel testing could improve information on endpoints such as endocrine disrupting abilities, neurotoxicity, and immunotoxicity. An adapted regulatory framework that integrates data from different sources and comparing the outputs with estimates of exposure is required. Fast toxicology battery testing and toxicokinetic testing could improve speed of decision-making. Hereby, several improvements have been proposed that could improve the current REACH legislation., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The prevalence of childhood obesity is rapidly increasing. Therefore, gaining more information on the role of environmental parameters is key. With overexpression of leptin (encoded by LEP) in obesity, LEP methylation might be altered by environmental exposures. This study aims to assess effects of ambient air pollution and nearby greenness on obesity-related growth and LEP methylation in early childhood. We monitored 120 mother-child pairs from conception until the age of five. Buccal swabs and anthropometric measurements of the children were taken at six months, one year, and five years old. Buccal DNA was extracted to determine LEP methylation levels. Estimates of air pollution and nearby greenness were calculated using high-resolution models. Effects of air pollution and nearby greenness on growth or LEP methylation were investigated using linear mixed effects models. Positive associations were shown for air pollution between conception and age one on impedance in six-month-olds and one-year-olds in the crude model. PM with aerodynamic diameter ≤10 (PM 10 ) and ≤2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ) positively associated with waist-hip-ratio and waist circumference at age five in the fully adjusted model. In early childhood, closest distance to forest negatively, and urban green and forest positively associated with weight-for-length, body mass index, and fat percentage in five-year-olds in the fully adjusted model. No significant associations for noise, and walkability on growth were seen. Negative associations were shown for smaller green clusters and positive associations for greater green clusters on LEP methylation in one-year-olds. For forest distance, walkability, noise, or all green on LEP methylation, no significant associations were found. Evidence is provided that ambient air pollution might have a significant effect on impedance and waist-hip-ratio, suggesting an increased risk of childhood obesity. Based on LEP methylation, greater green clusters might associate with a decreased risk of childhood obesity, while smaller green clusters showed the opposite., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Quality and Costs of Primary Care in Europe (QUALICOPC) study aims to analyse and compare how primary health care systems in 35 countries perform in terms of quality, costs and equity. This article answers the question 'How can the organisation and delivery of primary health care and its outcomes be measured through surveys of general practitioners (GPs) and patients?' It will also deal with the process of pooling questions and the subsequent development and application of exclusion criteria to arrive at a set of appropriate questions for a broad international comparative study., Methods: The development of the questionnaires consisted of four phases: a search for existing validated questionnaires, the classification and selection of relevant questions, shortening of the questionnaires in three consensus rounds and the pilot survey. Consensus was reached on the basis of exclusion criteria (e.g. the applicability for international comparison). Based on the pilot survey, comprehensibility increased and the number of questions was further restricted, as the questionnaires were too long., Results: Four questionnaires were developed: one for GPs, one for patients about their experiences with their GP, another for patients about what they consider important, and a practice questionnaire. The GP questionnaire mainly focused on the structural aspects (e.g. economic conditions) and care processes (e.g. comprehensiveness of services of primary care). The patient experiences questionnaire focused on the care processes and outcomes (e.g. how do patients experience access to care?). The questionnaire about what patients consider important was complementary to the experiences questionnaire, as it enabled weighing the answers from the latter. Finally, the practice questionnaire included questions on practice characteristics., Discussion: The QUALICOPC researchers have developed four questionnaires to characterise the organisation and delivery of primary health care and to compare and analyse the outcomes. Data collected with these instruments will allow us not only to show in detail the variation in process and outcomes of primary health care, but also to explain the differences from features of the (primary) health care system.