Skip to main content

The Role of Risk Assessment in Regulatory Decisions in the United States

  • Chapter
  • 353 Accesses

Part of the book series: Environmental Science Research ((ESRH,volume 31))

Summary

Risk assessment is an art that attempts to produce estimates of the probability of adverse effects for a particular exposure. Thus, a risk assessment may develop a series of probabilities for illness or death which could be associated with varying degrees of exposure to a substance such as an air pollutant, coffee, or the use of an automobile. The regulation of environmental toxicants is a difficult and complex procedure, burdened by scientific uncertainties that permit wide differences in the interpretation of scientific evidence. Two major components of a federal regulatory strategy for carcinogens involve the assessment of health risks from suspected carcinogens, and the regulatory processes that convert such estimates of risk into appropriate regulatory action. There are at least ten Public Laws in the United States that provide for the use of risk assessment. In some cases, risk assessment may be used to set Federal Standards; in others, state- and situation-specific regulations prevail. The probability of adverse health effects in relation to the extent of exposure is considered here, involving the analysis and f combination of epidemiological and other human data with animal effects data. Specific problems considered include the choice of data, combination of data, translation of data from experimental to actual settings, conversion of the results from animal experiments to human response, and the extrapolation of experimental results from high doses to estimated responses at low-ambient concentrations. The various methods used to consider such data in developing a risk assessment are considered. Frequently, there is disagreement about the best method to use for particular circumstances. Thus, there exists a great deal of uncertainty about risk assessments. Some knowledge of the extent of the uncertainty is important in interpreting risk assessment results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albert, R. A. (1980) Toward a more uniform federal strategy for the assessment and regulation of carcinogens. Report prepared for the Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ames, B. N. (1979) Identifying environmental chemicals causing mutations and cancer.Science204: 587 – 593.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson, E. L. (1982) Quantitative methods in use in the United States to assess cancer risk. Paper presented at the Workshop on Quantitative Estimation of Risk to Human Health from Chemicals. Rome, Italy, July 12.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barr, J. T. , D. H. Hughes, and R. C. Barnard (1981) The use of risk assessment in regulatory decision-making: Time for a review.Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1: 264 – 276.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Cornfield, J. (1977) Carcinogenic risk assessment. Science 198: 693 – 699.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  6. Crouch, E. , and R. Wilson (1979) Interspecies comparison of carcinogenic potency.J. Toxicol. Environ. Health5:1095–1118, and appendices.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Crouch, E. , and R. Wilson (1981) Regulation of carcinogens.Risk Anal. 1:47–57, 59 – 66.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Krump, K. S. (1982) Methods for estimating human cancer risks from non-human data. Presented at EPRI WDrkshop on Risk Assessment for Toxic Substances, December 1 – 2.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Krump, K. S. (1983) An improved procedure for low-dose extrapolation. In C. R. Richmond, P. J. Walsh and E. D. Copenhaver, Eds.Health Risk Analysis, Proceedings of the Third Life Sciences Symposium. The Franklin Institute Press, Philadelphia, PA. pp. 381 – 392.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Doll, R. , and R. Peto (1981) The causes o£ cancer: Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today.J. Nat. Cancer Inst. 66: 1191 – 1308.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Electric Power Research Institute (1981) Conference Proceedings: Environmental Risk Assessment. How new regulations will affect the utility industry. EPRI EA-2064, Palo Alto, California.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, The Delaney Clause, Section 409 (c) (3) (A).

    Google Scholar 

  13. Gaylor, D. W. (1979) The EDQ, study. Summary and conclusion.J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. 3: 179 – 183.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gori, G. B. (1980) The regulation of carcinogenic hazards. Science 208: 256 – 261.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  15. Gori, G. B. (1982) Regulation of cancer-causing substances: Utopia or reality.Chem. Eng. News6: 25 – 32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Horn, L. , J. Kaldor, and J. McCann (1983) A comparison of alternative measures of mutagenic potency in theSalmonella(Ames) test.Mutation Res. 109: 131 – 141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Interagency Regulatory Liaison Group, Vfork Group on Risk Assessment (1979) Scientific bases for identification of potential carcinogens and estimation of risks.J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 63: 242.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Krewski, D. , and C. Brown (1981) Carcinogenic risk assessment: A guide to the literature.Biometrics37: 353 - 366.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. Linsell, C. A. , and F. G. Peers (1977) Field studies on liver cell cancer, InOrigins of Human Cancer, H. H. Hiatt et al. , Eds. , Cold Spring Harbor, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Mantel, N. , and M. Schneiderman (1975) Estimating “safe” levels. A hazardous undertaking.Cancer Res. 35: 1379 – 1386.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Maugh, T. H. (1978) Chemical carcinogens: How dangerous are low doses?Science202: 37 – 41.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  22. McCann, J. , L. Horn, G. Litton, J. Kaldor, R. Magaw, L. Bernstein, and M. Pike (1983) Short-term tests for carcinogens and mutagens: A data base designed for comparative quantitative analysis, InStructure Activity as a Predictive Tool in Toxicology.Fundamentals, Methods, and Applications. , L. Goldberg, Ed. , Hemisphere Press, D. C. , pp. 229 – 240.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Munro, I. C. , and D. R. Krewski (1981) Risk assessment and regulatory decisionmaking.Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 19: 549 – 560.

    Google Scholar 

  24. National Academy of Sciences, Food Protection Committee, Food and Nutrition Board (1970) Evaluating the safety of food chemicals. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  25. National Academy of Sciences, Commission on Natural Resources (1975)Pest control: An assessment of present and alternative technologies. Vol. 1,Contemporary pest control practices and prospects. The Report of the Executive Committee, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  26. National Academy of Sciences, Committee for a Study on Saccharin andFood Safety Policy (1979) Food safety policy: Scientific and social considerations. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  27. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (1980)The effects on populations of exposure to low levels of ionizing radiation. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  28. National Academy of Sciences, Committee onRisk and Decision Making (1982) Risk and decision making: perspectives and research. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  29. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health (1983)Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (19980) Final rule: Identification, classification, and regulation of potential occupational carcinogens. Fed. Reg. 45:5001.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Office of Science and Technology Policy/ Regulatory Wbrk Group on Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President (October 1, 1982 )Potential human carcinogens: Methods for identification and characterization. Part 1: Current Views: Discussion Draft.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Office of Technology Assessment (1981) Assessment of the technologies for determining cancer risks from the environment. Washington, D. C.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Peto, R. , M. Pike, L. Bernstein, L. S. Gold, and B. Ames (1984) The TD: A proposed general convention for the numerical description of the carcinogenic potency of chemicals in chronic-exposure animal experiments.Enivron. Health Perspectives(submitted).

    Google Scholar 

  34. Ricci, P. F. , and L. S. Molton (1981) Risk and benefit in environmental law.Science214: 1096 – 1100.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  35. Saffiotti, U. (1980) The problem of extrapolating from observed carcinogenic effects to estimates of risk for exposed populations.J. Tox. & Environ. Health6: 1309 – 1326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Sontag, J. M. , M. P. Page, and U. Saffiotti (1976) Guidelines for carcinogenic bioassay in small rodents. National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Squire, R. A. (1981) Ranking animal carcinogens: A proposed regulatory approach.Science214: 877 – 880.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  38. Tomatis, L. , et al. (1978) Evaluation of the carcinogenicity of chemicals: A review of the monograph program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer,Cancer Res. 38: 877 – 885.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Weisburger, J. H. , and G. M. Williams (1980) Carcinogen testing: Current problems and new approaches.Science214: 401 – 407.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  40. Weisburger, J. H. , and G. M. Williams (1981) The decision-point approach for systematic carcinogen testing.Food Cosmet. Toxicol. 19: 561 – 566.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Whittemore, A. S. (1982) Estimating human risks from animal data. Presented at EPRI Workshop on Risk Assessment for Toxic Substances, Carmel, California. December 1–2 (unpublished).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Plenum Press, New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Newell, G.W. (1984). The Role of Risk Assessment in Regulatory Decisions in the United States. In: Chu, E.H.Y., Generoso, W.M. (eds) Mutation, Cancer, and Malformation. Environmental Science Research, vol 31. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2399-0_36

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2399-0_36

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4612-9463-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-2399-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics