Olavi Pelkonen

The decision by the co-Editor-in-Chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, Prof. Martin van den Berg, to retract the 2000 review article by Williams, Kroes, and Munro has elicited widespread criticism within the scientific community. Issued in late 2025, the retraction decision cites procedural concerns including potential ghostwriting, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and omission of certain unpublished studies, invoking Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines despite lacking evidence of fraud or scientific flaws. This editorial argues that the retraction decision involves editorial overreach and misapplication of the guidelines. The alleged omissions stemmed from proprietary data access limitations that were disclosed in the original paper. Subsequent reviews by several independent expert panels and regulatory authorities with access to all glyphosate data, including the studies cited by the retracting editor, reached similar conclusions. Claims of ghostwriting were previously investigated and found lacking, including a declaration by EFSA as to the clarity of the conflict disclosures. The retraction’s timing, reliance on litigation documents, and apparent biases that were not disclosed in the retraction notice raise questions of ideological interference. Absent substantive rebuttals based on scientific merit rather than speculative claims of inappropriate authorship and data access, this retraction decision sets a dangerous precedent for retroactive censorship, potentially chilling beneficial industry-academic collaborations and eroding trust in the integrity of scientific publishing. With the strongest conviction, we assert that retracting a paper without scientific flaws isn’t protection—it is censorship. We therefore call for the immediate reversal of this flawed and unjustified retraction to preserve trust in peer-reviewed literature.

A large majority of chemicals is converted into metabolites through xenobiotic-metabolising enzymes. Metabolites may present a spectrum of characteristics varying from similar to vastly different compared with the parent compound in terms of both toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. In the pesticide arena, the role of metabolism and metabolites is increasingly recognised as a significant factor particularly for the design and interpretation of mammalian toxicological studies and in the toxicity assessment of pesticide/metabolite-associated issues for hazard characterization and risk assessment purposes, including the role of metabolites as parts in various residues in ecotoxicological adversities. This is of particular relevance to pesticide metabolites that are unique to humans in comparison with metabolites found in in vitro or in vivo animal studies, but also to disproportionate metabolites (quantitative differences) between humans and mammalian species. Presence of unique or disproportionate metabolites may underlie potential toxicological concerns. This review aims to present the current state-of-the-art of comparative metabolism and metabolites in pesticide research for hazard and risk assessment, including One Health perspectives, and future research needs based on the experiences gained at the European Food Safety Authority.

The 1958 Delaney amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act prohibited food additives causing cancer in animals by appropriate tests. Regulators responded by adopting chronic lifetime cancer tests in rodents, soon challenged as inappropriate, for they led to very inconsistent results depending on the subjective choice of animals, test design and conduct, and interpretive assumptions. Presently, decades of discussions and trials have come to conclude it is impossible to translate chronic animal data into verifiable prospects of cancer hazards and risks in humans. Such conclusion poses an existential crisis for official agencies in the US and abroad, which for some 65 years have used animal tests to justify massive regulations of alleged human cancer hazards, with aggregated costs of $trillions and without provable evidence of public health advantages. This article addresses suitable remedies for the US and potentially worldwide, by critically exploring the practices of regulatory agencies vis-á-vis essential criteria for validating scientific evidence. According to this analysis, regulations of alleged cancer hazards and risks have been and continue to be structured around arbitrary default assumptions at odds with basic scientific and legal tests of reliable evidence. Such practices raise a manifold ethical predicament for being incompatible with basic premises of the US Constitution, and with the ensuing public expectations of testable truth and transparency from government agencies. Potential remedies in the US include amendments to the US Administrative Procedures Act, preferably requiring agencies to justify regulations compliant with the Daubert opinion of the Daubert ruling of the US Supreme Court, which codifies the criteria defining reliable scientific evidence. International reverberations are bound to follow what remedial actions may be taken in the US, the origin of current world regulatory procedures to control alleged cancer causing agents.

Chloro-s-triazines-atrazine, cyanazine, propazine, simazine, and terbuthylazine-are structurally similar herbicides, differing only in specific s-triazine4-and 6-N alkyl substituents. It is generally regarded that their toxicokinetics, such as, metabolic pathways, biological effects and toxicities, also share more similar features than the differences. Consequently, it is useful to compare their characteristics to potentially find useful structure-activity relationships or other similarities or differences regarding different active compounds, their metabolites, and biological effects including toxic outcomes. The ultimate goal of these exercises is to apply the summarized knowledge-as far as it is possible regarding a patchy and often inadequate database-to cross the in vitro-in vivo and animal-human borders and integrate the available data to enhance toxicological risk assessment for the benefit of humans and ecosystems.

The cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme family is the most important enzyme system catalyzing the phase 1 metabolism of pharmaceuticals and other xenobiotics such as herbal remedies and toxic compounds in the environment. The inhibition and induction of CYPs are major mechanisms causing pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions. This review presents a comprehensive update on the inhibitors and inducers of the specific CYP enzymes in humans. The focus is on the more recent human in vitro and in vivo findings since the publication of our previous review on this topic in 2008. In addition to the general presentation of inhibitory drugs and inducers of human CYP enzymes by drugs, herbal remedies, and toxic compounds, an in-depth view on tyrosine-kinase inhibitors and antiretroviral HIV medications as victims and perpetrators of drug–drug interactions is provided as examples of the current trends in the field. Also, a concise overview of the mechanisms of CYP induction is presented to aid the understanding of the induction phenomena.

On the basis of official Finnish Medicines Authority (Fimea)-approved drug monographs, less than half of the approved small-molecule drugs between 2007 and 2016 were substrates, inhibitors or inducers of CYP enzymes, predominantly of CYP3A4. No significant unexpected, life-threatening, CYP-associated drug-drug interactions (CYP-DDIs) of newly approved drug entities have been observed in the last 10–15 years. The present analysis seems to suggest that tools to study and predict potentially significant CYP-DDIs are working and efficient.

Toxicological risk assessment of plant protection products (PPP) is currently carried out with the principal input from regulatory toxicology studies following OECD test guidelines, with little input from epidemiological data. An EFSA-commissioned systematic review of pesticide epidemiological studies (Ntzani et al. in Literature review on epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects. EFSA supporting publication 2013:EN-497, 2013 ) revealed statistically significant associations, among others, between pesticide exposures, and Parkinson’s disease and childhood leukemia. Thereafter, EFSA launched a project with a mandate for the plant protection products and their residues (PPR) Panel to set the ground for the use of epidemiological data in the risk assessment of pesticides, as requested by Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The project culminated with the publication of two EFSA’s scientific opinions on the potential contribution of experimental investigations and epidemiological studies in PPP risk assessment and with the scientific conference held on 20 November 2017, in Parma, Italy. The application of modern methodologies in exposure assessment, toxicology and epidemiology would improve the pesticide risk assessment process and support a mechanistic shift for the integration of these three disciplines under a novel paradigm in risk assessment. The application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) conceptual framework to this approach would contribute to gain insight into the biological plausibility of a hazard identified in epidemiological or experimental studies and would inform an Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) within a regulatory context.

Pregnane X receptor (PXR), constitutive androstane receptor (CAR), aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AHR) and peroxisome proliferator‐activated receptor α (PPARα) are ligand‐activated transcription factors that regulate expression of many xenobiotic‐metabolizing enzymes including several cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes. Many xenobiotics induce CYP enzymes through these intracellular receptors and consequently affect toxicokinetics and possible metabolic activation of the receptor ligands and other xenobiotics utilizing similar metabolic pathways. However, it is now apparent that the xenobiotic receptors regulate also many endogenous functions and signalling pathways, and xenobiotic exposure thus may dysregulate an array of fundamental cell functions. This MiniReview surveys and discusses the multifaceted roles of xenobiotic receptors, for which CYP induction may serve as the first alert and possibly a biomarker for exposure to xenobiotics. With the current emergence of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept, these receptors are being and will be assigned as molecular initiating events or key events in numerous discrete toxicity pathways.