Search

A key element of risk assessment is accounting for the full range of variability in response to environmental exposures. Default dose-response methods typically assume a 10-fold difference in response to chemical exposures between average (healthy) and susceptible humans, despite evidence of wider variability. Experts and authoritative bodies support using advanced techniques to better account for human variability due to factors such as in utero or early life exposure and exposure to multiple environmental, social, and economic stressors. This review describes: 1) sources of human variability and susceptibility in dose-response assessment, 2) existing US frameworks for addressing response variability in risk assessment; 3) key scientific inadequacies necessitating updated methods; 4) improved approaches and opportunities for better use of science; and 5) specific and quantitative recommendations to address evidence and policy needs. Current default adjustment factors do not sufficiently capture human variability in dose-response and thus are inadequate to protect the entire population. Susceptible groups are not appropriately protected under current regulatory guidelines. Emerging tools and data sources that better account for human variability and susceptibility include probabilistic methods, genetically diverse in vivo and in vitro models, and the use of human data to capture underlying risk and/or assess combined effects from chemical and non-chemical stressors. We recommend using updated methods and data to improve consideration of human variability and susceptibility in risk assessment, including the use of increased default human variability factors and separate adjustment factors for capturing age/life stage of development and exposure to multiple chemical and non-chemical stressors. Updated methods would result in greater transparency and protection for susceptible groups, including children, infants, people who are pregnant or nursing, people with disabilities, and those burdened by additional environmental exposures and/or social factors such as poverty and racism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In February 2021, over one hundred scientists and policy experts participated in a web-based Workshop to discuss the ways that divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties are used to delay timely protection of human health and the environment from exposures to hazardous agents. The Workshop arose from a previous workshop organized by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2008 and which also drew on case studies from the EEA reports on 'Late Lessons from Early Warnings' (2001, 2013). These reports documented dozens of hazardous agents including many chemicals, for which risk reduction measures were delayed for decades after scientists and others had issued early and later warnings about the harm likely to be caused by those agents.Results: Workshop participants used recent case studies including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Extremely Low Frequency - Electrical Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF fields), glyphosate, and Bisphenol A (BPA) to explore myriad reasons for divergent outcomes of evaluations, which has led to delayed and inadequate protection of the public's health. Strategies to overcome these barriers must, therefore, at a minimum include approaches that 1) Make better use of existing data and information, 2) Ensure timeliness, 3) Increase transparency, consistency and minimize bias in evidence evaluations, and 4) Minimize the influence of financial conflicts of interest.Conclusion: The recommendations should enhance the production of "actionable evidence," that is, reliable evaluations of the scientific evidence to support timely actions to protect health and environments from exposures to hazardous agents. The recommendations are applicable to policy and regulatory settings at the local, state, federal and international levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a Policy Forum, Irva Hertz-Picciotto and colleagues review the scientific evidence linking organophosphate pesticides to cognitive, behavioral, and neurological deficits in children and recommend actions to reduce exposures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this report we present the findings from a nanotoxicology workshop held 6-7 April 2006 at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, DC. Over 2 days, 26 scientists from government, academia, industry, and nonprofit organizations addressed two specific questions: what information is needed to understand the human health impact of engineered nanoparticles and how is this information best obtained? To assess hazards of nanoparticles in the near-term, most participants noted the need to use existing in vivo toxicologic tests because of their greater familiarity and interpretability. For all types of toxicology tests, the best measures of nanoparticle dose need to be determined. Most participants agreed that a standard set of nanoparticles should be validated by laboratories worldwide and made available for benchmarking tests of other newly created nanoparticles. The group concluded that a battery of tests should be developed to uncover particularly hazardous properties. Given the large number of diverse materials, most participants favored a tiered approach. Over the long term, research aimed at developing a mechanistic understanding of the numerous characteristics that influence nanoparticle toxicity was deemed essential. Predicting the potential toxicity of emerging nanoparticles will require hypothesis-driven research that elucidates how physicochemical parameters influence toxic effects on biological systems. Research needs should be determined in the context of the current availability of testing methods for nanoscale particles. Finally, the group identified general policy and strategic opportunities to accelerate the development and implementation of testing protocols and ensure that the information generated is translated effectively for all stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a letter to the editor commenting on an article published in the periodical "Environmental Health Perspectives" concerning the issue of human experimentation.

Presents a letter to the editor about the industrial testing of toxic pesticides on human subjects.

Comments on the statement of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE) in Washington, D.C. that chemical toxicity studies subject to peer review and published in scientific journals may not be reliable to be used by U.S. government scientists. Reliance of the CRE on the Data Quality Act which requires public agencies to develop guidelines for ensuring quality and integrity of information disseminated; Call by the CRE for validated tests; Case of the atrazine research.