Risk assessors

Exposure assessment, step three, allows a risk assessor to estimate the significance of the effects induced by high doses of a chemical in experimental animals in a human situation. Exposure assessment is, in fact, a prerequisite for quantitative risk assessment because it allows a comparison between effects induced by high dose with those induced by low doses, and also allows... 

If it is deemed appropriate to smii risks and liazard indices across padiways, the risk assessor should clemly idendfy those exposure padiway combinations for which a total risk estimate or hazard index is being developed. The rationale supporting such combinations should also be clearly stated. 

In tlie risk characterization, conclusions about hazard and dose response are integrated witli those from the exposure assessment. In addition, confidence about tliese conclusions, including information about tlie micertainties associated with each aspect of the assessment in the final risk sununary. should be higlilighted. In tlie previous assessment steps and in tlie risk characterization, tlie risk assessor should also distinguish between variability and uncertainty. 

Risk assessors tend to build in additional uncertainty factors to avoid healthrelevant underestimates. This is partly done by using screening methods designed to look for worst case situations. Such worse case assumptions lead to intake estimates that exceed reality. For chemicals that present potential risks, more information is needed to allow more refined screening or even the most accurate estima-... 

In summary, the proposal of an appropriate definition of the residue is not a process which follows simple and unambiguous rules in each case. The differences between residue definitions of some European MRLs and US tolerances illustrate the importance of harmonization. However, the great effort sometimes necessary to reach a suitable and accepted residue definition, which considers the needs of risk assessors (toxicologists) and the feasibility aspects of residue analysts, is clearly a vital prerequisite for any method development and validation. 

For comparison purposes, the results of the various analyses and risk estimates for the mixers/loaders/applicators in greenhouses are summarized in Table 6. All of these analyses present the risk assessor with some information about the possible hazards to workers who are exposed to... 

This book will be of interest to toxicologists, immunologists, clinicians, risk assessors, and others with an interest in accidental or deliberate immunomodulation. Although few of the chapters are written on an introductory level, background information and citations for review articles are included in most chapters that will provide a starting point for individuals seeking additional information. 

Risk characterization provides a basis for discussions of risk management between risk assessors and risk managers (US EPA 1998). These discussions are held to ensure that results of risk analysis are presented completely and clearly for decision makers, thus allowing any necessary mitigation measures (e.g., monitoring, collecting additional data to reduce uncertainty, etc.). 

By the nature of its content, with contributions from experienced practitioners, the book aims to serve as a practical reference for researchers, post docs, PhD-students and postgraduates as well as risk assessors working on surfactants in environmental laboratories, environmental agencies, the surfactant industry, the water industry and sewage treatment facilities. Each chapter includes extensive references to the literature and also contains detailed investigations. The broad spectrum of the book and its application to environmental priority compounds makes it unique in many ways. 

This Statement could no doubt be much improved upon, but, based on what we have said in the last chapter, it is certainly much closer to what risk assessors know than those cited earlier. 

Another important source of confusion in the use of the term risk needs to be re-emphasized here. When a risk assessor states that exposure to DES increases the risk of certain cancers in women, they mean... 

For the purposes of risk assessment the exposed individuals are, in a way, hypothetical, not actual people. By this is meant that they will be assumed to exhibit certain characteristics that make it possible to reach general conclusions regarding the magnitude and duration of their exposure to the chemical of interest, and also their relative sensitivity to its toxic effects. It may be that there are actual people in the population having characteristics closely resembling those assumed by the risk assessor, but it is not possible to know (except in highly unusual circumstances) who those people are. ... 

Some risk assessors describe the process of setting up for risk assessment as developing a scenario. A scenario is a description of the population that is of interest and the way such a population is or could become exposed to a chemical or group of chemicals. Some typical scenarios for risk assessment are set out in Table 8.1, in abbreviated form. 

A similar set of defaults could be described for the human exposure assessment step. As noted, the regulatory approach tends to target those members of the population who are at the high end of exposures, and in some cases regulators, and other risk assessors, engage in something close to what is known as a worst-case exposure analysis. Here are three simple examples. 

The counter argument to the above rests on the premise that risk assessment outcomes, if not currently testable, might be in the future. Many scientific hypotheses are not testable at the time they are proposed this does not mean they are unscientific, assuming they are based upon and are consistent with all available knowledge. Moreover, risk assessors continue to urge the development of the type of data that will improve the reliability and testability of their predictions. 

To deal with this problem the EPA invested in the development and validation of a pharmacokinetic model that is capable of relating intake of lead to blood level. The model also allows the risk assessor to develop blood level estimates that integrate all sources of exposure. Using this model, it becomes possible to determine whether a specific source, such as our suspect water supply, is leading to exposures in excess of the target for all sources combined (this assumes that other sources do not contain levels of lead greater than normal, background... 

As introduced in Chapter 8, uncertainty factors (UF) are commonly invoked by risk assessors to deal with uncertain knowledge regarding, for example, differences in response between animals and humans (interspecies extrapolation), and variability in response among humans. Typical defaults for these two sources of uncertainty are UFs of 10. 

This is confusing. Why don t risk assessors simply decide what level of exposure is safe for each chemical, and risk managers simply put into effect mechanisms to ensure that industry reaches the safe level Why should different sources of risk be treated differently Why apply a no risk standard to certain substances (e.g., those intentionally introduced into food, such as aspartame) and an apparently more lenient risk-henefit standard to unwanted contaminants of food such as PCBs, methylmercury, and aflatoxins (which the FDA applies under another section of food law) Why allow technological limitations to influence any decision about health What is this risk-henefit balancing nonsense Aren t some of these statutes simply sophisticated mechanisms to allow polluters to expose people to risk ... 

It should be clear by now that risk assessors do not know how to draw a sharp line between safe and unsafe exposures to any chemical. The very notion of safety is scientifically wrongheaded, if it is to mean the absolute absence of risk. If safety is defined in this way, it... 

Interactive exchange of information about (health or environmental) risks among risk assessors, managers, news media, interested groups, and the general public. 

The selection of an MOE that would be considered acceptable is a societal judgment and primarily the responsibility of risk managers rather than risk assessors. EFSA considered that an overall MOE of 10,000 for the BMDLio, or 25,000 for the T25, would be of low health concern. 

The toxicity exposure ratio approach, rather than a more rigid standard setting approach (Section 8.2.2), allows greater room for expert judgment because the size of an overall assessment factor is not fixed. Furthermore, this approach can be readily applied to substances for which limited data are available. The risk assessor can decide how wide the MOS should be in the light of the data available. 

It should be noted that MOS ratios are no absolute measure of risks. Nobody knows the real risks of chemicals where the exposure exceeds the derived no-effect level (DNEL). The risk assessor only knows that the likelihood of adverse effects increases when the DNEL/E ratios decrease or the E/DNEL ratios increase. Thus, such ratios are internationally accepted only as substitutes for risks. 

It should be recognized that precise risk assessments do not exist and risk assessors will often differ in the conclusions they draw from the same set of data, particularly if the conclusions contain some implicit value judgments. 

---