Part, Chapter, Paragraph
1 II, 5. 5. 2| comparable contexts and express opinions free from peer-group pressure.
2 II, 5. 5. 3| interventions. More conservative opinions concerning early detection
3 II, 5. 5. 3| clinical studies and on expert opinions collected and critically
4 II, 5. 8. 3| being based on WHO expert opinions (Halbert et al, 2003). Recently,
5 II, 5. 10. 5| March 2005, following the opinions of the European Food safety
6 II, 5. 15. 4| designation, for giving opinions on the designation of orphan
7 II, 6. 4. 4| authoritative scientific opinions about the risks posed by
8 III, 10. 4. 2| more than 500 scientific opinions on a wide variety of risk
9 III, 10. 4. 2| consistency in the scientific opinions they produce.~ ~In addition,
10 III, 10. 4. 2| based on sound scientific opinions, include:~ ~· A co-ordinated
11 III, 10. 4. 2| have been utilized.~ ~Two opinions have been published by the
12 III, 10. 4. 2| europa.eu/en/science/pprippr_opinions.html) on the importance
13 III, 10. 4. 2| provides independent scientific opinions and guidance for the Community’
14 III, 10. 4. 2| Providing scientific opinions on generic opinions, on
15 III, 10. 4. 2| scientific opinions on generic opinions, on generic issues regarding
16 III, 10. 4. 2| from Member States:~- 36 opinions have been adopted since
17 III, 10. 4. 2| Panel has now published five opinions on the final guidance documents
18 III, 10. 4. 2| has published six separate opinions on physical and chemical
19 III, 10. 5. 3| career advancement. Both opinions are a little more frequent
20 IV, 11. 1. 5| comparing differences in opinions across countries and time.
21 IV, 12. 4 | adopted a wide range of opinions covering possible cancer
22 IV, 12. 4 | nanotechnologies; several key opinions were finalised after a wide
23 IV, 13. 7. 4| is consulted for specific opinions to be considered by the
