Search

Risk assessment of chemicals can be based on toxicology and/or epidemiology. The choice of toxicological or epidemiological data can result in different health‐based guidance values (HBGVs). Communicating the underlying argumentation is important to explain these differences to the public and policymakers. In this article, we explore the argumentation used to justify the use of toxicological or epidemiological data in the derivation of HBGVs in four different risk assessments for the chemical Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The pragma‐dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT) is hereby applied. The argumentations to select relevant health endpoints or certain studies to infer causality appeared mainly based on "symptomatic relations," that is, study results are used as characteristic of what was claimed to be a causal relation without delving into the actual causal argumentation that preceded it. Starting points that are at the basis of the chain of arguments remained implicit. Argumentation to use epidemiological and/or toxicological data was only briefly mentioned and the underlying argumentative foundation that led to the conclusion was seldom found or not addressed at all. The decision to include/exclude information was made based on the availability of data, or the motives for the choice remained largely unclear. We conclude that more depth in argumentation and a subordinative chain of arguments is needed to better disclose the underlying reasoning leading to a certain health‐based guidance value (HBGV). More explicit identification and discussion of starting points could be a valuable addition to general risk assessment frameworks for maximum use of toxicological and epidemiological data and shared conclusions of the assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A fully integrated Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS) in respect of chemicals is crucial and must include: • An objective evaluation of the present situation including impacts of 'chemicals of concern' throughout their life cycle, that incorporates sustainability issues. • A framework that facilitates innovation of chemistry-based approaches to tackle each of the key sustainability issues. The EU CSS only addresses adverse impacts and mainly focusses on one aspect of risk assessment, the hazard to humans from individual industrial chemicals. The proposal removes consideration of the nature and amount of exposure, which is a critical determinant of risk. It can be presumed that this is solely to simplify, and hence speed up, regulatory decisions thereby enabling more chemicals to be assessed. The linkage of this proposed approach to address any of the major sustainability issues, such as environmental pollutants is obscure. For example, the well-recognised environmental problems caused by polymers such as plastics are not considered. The proposed change in the assessment methodology lacks any scientific justification and fails to address the sustainability issues the EU and the rest of the world are facing. The authors critically discuss a comprehensive innovative evaluation methodology for the impact of chemicals., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Helmut Greim and Kees van Leeuwen both report a relationship as Member of the Scientific Committee of the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC)., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium [Cr(VI)], a known lung carcinogen, remains a relevant concern. When performing exposure assessment for risk assessment, biomonitoring is an important tool, reflecting actual internal exposure of workers. Here, we present total urinary chromium (U-Cr) biomonitoring data from several occupational sectors, spanning 1980-2016 (n > 42,000). Based on these data, we estimated lifelong (40-year) occupational lung cancer risks in the Cr-plating and welding sectors. We used published regression formulas to relate internal (U-Cr) and external Cr(VI) inhalation exposures, allowing risk assessment based on a published lung cancer dose-response. Generally, measured U-Cr levels decreased considerably over the study period. The overall highest U-Cr P95 levels (representing realistic worst-case) were measured in the interval 1980-1989 in casters, maintenance workers and welders (40-45 μg/L). By the interval 2010-2016, the U-Cr P95 had decreased to ≤9.5 μg/L in all studied sectors. Lifelong external Cr(VI) exposure estimation for 1980-2019 was 0.16-0.32 mg/m 3 x year for platers and 1.03 mg/m 3 x year for welders. Worst-case lifelong lung cancer relative risk (RR) estimates were 1.28-1.56 for platers and 2.80 for welders; attributable risks (AR) were 22-36% for platers and 64% for welders. Uncertainties that may have impacted the risk assessment are discussed., 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 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evaluating and managing exposures to chemical, physical and biological stressors, which frequently interplay with psychological stressors as well as social and behavioural aspects, is crucial for protecting human and environmental health and transitioning towards a sustainable future. Advances in our understanding of exposure rely on input from well-trained exposure scientists. However, no education programmes in Europe are currently explicitly dedicated to cover the broader range of exposure science approaches, applications, stressors and receptors., Objective: To address this challenge, a curriculum is needed that yields credible, well-defined career pathways in exposure science., Methods: Needs and conditions for advancing exposure science education in Europe were identified. As a starting point for a way forward, harmonised learning outcomes for exposure science were defined at each level of the European Qualifications Framework. The course programme coordinators were recruited for three varying courses, with respect to the course level and the proportion of the curriculum dedicated to exposure science. These courses were assessed via our systematic course review procedure. Finally, strategic objectives and actions are proposed to build exposure science education programmes., Results: The ISES Europe 'Education, Training and Communication' expert working group developed a framework for creating a viable exposure science curriculum. Harmonised learning outcomes were structured under eight learning levels, categorised by knowledge, skills and competence. Illustrative case studies demonstrated how education providers integrated these learning outcomes for their educational context and aligned the overall exposure science curriculum., Conclusions: The international recognition and adoption of exposure science education will enable advances in addressing global exposure science challenges for various stressors, from behavioural aspects from individual to population scale, and effective communication between exposure scientists and relevant stakeholders and policy makers, as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030., 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 © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: A scientific framework on exposure science will boost the multiuse of exposure knowledge across EU chemicals-related policies and improve risk assessment, risk management and communication across EU safety, security and sustainability domains., Objective: To stimulate public and private actors to align and strengthen the cross-policy adoption of exposure assessment data, methods and tools across EU legislation., Methods: By mapping and analysing the EU regulatory landscape making use of exposure information, policy and research challenges and key areas of action are identified and translated into opportunities enhancing policy and scientific efficiency., Results: Identified key areas of actions are to develop a common scientific exposure assessment framework, supported by baseline acceptance criteria and a shared knowledge base enhancing exchangeability and acceptability of exposure knowledge within and across EU chemicals-related policies. Furthermore, such framework will improve communication and management across EU chemical safety, security and sustainability policies comprising sourcing, manufacturing and global trade of goods and waste management. In support of building such a common framework and its effective use in policy and industry, exposure science innovation needs to be better embedded along the whole policymaking cycle, and be integrated into companies' safety and sustainability management systems. This will help to systemically improve regulatory risk management practices., Significance: This paper constitutes an important step towards the implementation of the EU Green Deal and its underlying policy strategies, such as the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Risk assessment of chemicals can be based on toxicology and/or epidemiology. The choice of toxicological or epidemiological data can result in different health-based guidance values (HBGVs). Communicating the underlying argumentation is important to explain these differences to the public and policymakers. In this article, we explore the argumentation used to justify the use of toxicological or epidemiological data in the derivation of HBGVs in four different risk assessments for the chemical Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA). The pragma-dialectical argumentation theory (PDAT) is hereby applied. The argumentations to select relevant health endpoints or certain studies to infer causality appeared mainly based on "symptomatic relations," that is, study results are used as characteristic of what was claimed to be a causal relation without delving into the actual causal argumentation that preceded it. Starting points that are at the basis of the chain of arguments remained implicit. Argumentation to use epidemiological and/or toxicological data was only briefly mentioned and the underlying argumentative foundation that led to the conclusion was seldom found or not addressed at all. The decision to include/exclude information was made based on the availability of data, or the motives for the choice remained largely unclear. We conclude that more depth in argumentation and a subordinative chain of arguments is needed to better disclose the underlying reasoning leading to a certain health-based guidance value (HBGV). More explicit identification and discussion of starting points could be a valuable addition to general risk assessment frameworks for maximum use of toxicological and epidemiological data and shared conclusions of the assessment., (© 2021 Society for Risk Analysis.)