Advertisement

Evolution and Future of Human Health and Environmental Risk Assessment

  • Nicoleta Alina Suciu
  • Silvia Panizzi
  • Philippe Ciffroy
  • Antoni Ginebreda
  • Alice Tediosi
  • Damià Barceló
  • Ettore Capri
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 57)

Abstract

Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) are well-established regulatory and scientific research fields that support regulatory decision-making in the European Union (EU) and are undergoing constant development. HHRA and ERA are crucial steps for reaching the objectives of Europe 2020, a strategy put forward by the Commission that sets out a vision of Europe’s social market economy for the twenty-first century. This chapter aims to describe the basic principles, the evolution and the future challenges of HHRA and ERA.

The first part defines HHRA and ERA and describes the origins of risk assessment and management procedures at an international level. The precautionary principle has always been present in the European Union policies that aim to protect health and the environment.

In the second part, current approaches that characterise risk assessment, such as the tiered approach, are presented. In the future, the implementation of recent scientific developments for the construction of integrated exposure scenarios models is of paramount importance to improve environmental and health risk assessment schemes. Moreover, the evaluation of uncertainties in the modelling inputs and outputs and the sensitivity analysis are two key elements to optimise current HHRA and ERA procedures.

Keywords

Environmental Risk Assessment EU policies Human Health Risk Assessment Integrated Exposure Assessment Uncertainty 

References

  1. 1.
    EC, European Commission (2000) First report on the harmonization of risk assessment procedures. Dg Health and Consumer protection (SANCO)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Royal Society (1992) Risk analysis, perception and management. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IRGC, International Risk Governance Council (2005) Risk governance: towards an integrated approach. IRGC, Geneva. Available at: https://www.irgc.org/IMG/pdf/IRGC_WP_No_1_Risk_Governance__reprinted_version_.pdf. Accessed Dec 2016
  4. 4.
    OECD (2003) Emerging systemic risks. Final report to the OECD futures project. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2000) Risk Characterization (Handbook). Science Policy Council. EPA 100-B-00-002Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Renn O (2005) Risk governance. Towards and integrative approach, international risk governance council, Geneva, Switzerland, White Paper No. 1Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stern PC, Fineberg HV (eds) (1996) Understanding risk: informing decisions in a democratic society. National Academies PressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Funtowicz S, Strand R (2007) Models of science and policy. Biosafety first: holistic approaches to risk and uncertainty in genetic engineering and genetically modified organisms, pp 263–278Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lupien JR (2000) The Codex Alimentarius Commission: international science-based standards, guidelines and recommendations. AgBioForum 3(4):192–196Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    NRC, National Research Council (1983) Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Landis W, Sofield R, Yu MH, Landis WG (2003) Introduction to environmental toxicology: impacts of chemicals upon ecological systems. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suter II GW, Norton SB, Barnthouse LW (2003) The evolution of frameworks for ecological risk assessment from the Red Book ancestor. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10807030390240391. Accessed 20 Dec 2016
  13. 13.
    Beanlands GE, Duinker PN (1983) An ecological framework for environmental impact assessment in Canada. Institute for Resource and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University and Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, Halifax, NSGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    CEQ, Council of Environental Quality (1986) Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508). July 1, 1986Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cairns J Jr, Dickson KL, Maki AW (1978) Estimating the hazard of chemical substances to aquatic life. Hydrobiologia 64:157. doi:  10.1007/BF00023191
  16. 16.
    USEPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency (1986) The risk assessment guidelines of 1986. EPA/600/8-87/045Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ehrlich A (1988) Risk Assessment Guidelines Update. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/D-88/264 (NTIS PB89133417)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bascietto J, Hinckley D, Plafkin J, Slimak M (1990) Ecotoxicity and ecological risk assessment. Regulatory applications at EPA. Part 1. Environ Sci Technol 24(1):10–15Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Framework for ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: EPA/630/R-92/001Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Guidance for ecological risk assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: EPA/630/R-95/002FGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vermeire T, Rikken M, Attias L, Boccardi P, Boeije G, Brooke D, de Bruijn J, Comber M, Dolan B, Fischer S, Heinemeyer G (2005) European Union system for the evaluation of substances: the second version. Chemosphere 59(4):473–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Christoforou T (2001) The origin, content and role of the precautionary principle European Community Law. In: Freytag E, Jakl T, Loibl G, Wittmann M (eds) The role of precaution in chemicals policy: the precautionary principle in existing law, the Rationality of Precaution and the future of precaution in chemical policy. Diplomatic Academy, Vienna, pp. 23–41Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Krämer L (2001) Precaution, the protection of health and the environment, and the free circulation of goods within the European Union. In: Freytag E, Jakl T, Loibl G, Wittmann M (eds) The role of precaution in chemicals policy: the precautionary principle in existing law, the Rationality of Precaution and the future of precaution in chemical policy. Diplomatic Academy, Vienna, pp. 42–54Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Applegate JS (2000) The precautionary preference: an American perspective on the precautionary principle. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 6(3):413–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harremoës P (2003) The need to account for uncertainty in public decision making related to technological change. Integrated Assess 4(1):18–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cross FB (1996) Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Wash Lee Law Rev 53:851Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kriebel D, Tickner J, Epstein P, Lemons J, Levins R, Loechler EL, Quinn M, Rudel R, Schettler T, Stoto M (2001) The precautionary principle in environmental science. Environ Health Perspect 109(9):871CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Saltelli A, Funtowicz S (2004) The precautionary principle: implications for risk management strategies. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17(1):47–58Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    EC, European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission on the precautionary principle. European Commission, Brussels: 2000 Feb. COM 1 finalGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Verstrynge J (2000) Precaution in the future European chemical policy. In: Freytag E, Jakl T, Loibl G, Wittmann M (eds) The role of precaution in chemicals policy: the precautionary principle in existing law, the Rationality of Precaution and the future of precaution in chemical policy. Diplomatic Academy, Vienna, pp. 160–164Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Vos E (2000) EU food safety regulation in the aftermath of the BSE crisis. J Consum Policy 23(3):227–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Stirling A (1999) On ‘Science’ and ‘Precaution’ in the management of technological risk, volume I: synthesis study, report to the EU Forward Studies Unit by European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO), EUR19056 EN. IPTS, SevillaGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Stirling A (2001) On ‘Science’ and ‘Precaution’ in the management of technological risk, volume II: case studies, report to the EU Forward Studies Unit by European Science and Technology Observatory (ESTO). IPTS, SevillaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gee D, MacGarvin M, European Environment Agency (2001) In: Harremoës P (ed) Late lessons from early warnings: the precautionary principle 1896–2000. Office for Official Publications of the European CommunitiesGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Harremoës P, Gee D, MacGarvin M, Stirling A, Keys J, Wynne B, Vaz SG (2013) The precautionary principle in the 20th century: late lessons from early warnings. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    UNECE, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (1998) Aarhus Convention. Available at: https://www.unece.org/env/pp/treatytext.html. Accessed Dec 2016
  37. 37.
    EC, European Commission (2001) European Commission Working Group 1.b. Democratising expertise and establishing European scientific references, in European Governance. A White Paper European Commission, Brussels: 2001 July. COM 428 finalGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Felt U, Wynne B, Callon M (2007) Taking European knowledge society seriously, vol 22. DG for Research. EUR, Luxembourg, p 700Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Klintman M, Kronsell A (2010) Challenges to legitimacy in food safety governance? The case of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). J Eur Integr 32(3):309–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2016) EFSA strategy 2020. Trusted science for safe food. Available at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/corporate/pub/strategy2020. Accessed Jan 2017
  41. 41.
    ECB, European Chemicals Bureau (2003) Technical Guidance Document on risk assessment. Available at: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/16960216/tgdpart2_2ed_en.pdf. Accessed Dec 2016
  42. 42.
    EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2016) Guidance to develop specific protection goals options for environmental risk assessment at EFSA, in relation to biodiversity and ecosystem services. EFSA J 14(6):4499, 50 pp. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4499 Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    SCHER (Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety) (2013) Making risk assessment more relevant for risk managementGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Guidelines for exposure assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC: EPA/600/Z-92/001Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Baker JL, Barefoot AC, Beasley LE, Burns LA, Caulkins PP, Clark JE, Feulner RL, Giesy JP, Graney RL, Griggs RH, Jacoby HM, Laskowski DA, Maciorowski AF, Mihaich EM, Nelson Jr HP, Parrish PR, Siefert RE, Solomon KR, van der Schalie WH (eds) (1994) Aquatic dialogue group: pesticide risk assessment and mitigation. Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Pensacola, USAGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    ECHA, European Chemicals Agency (2008) Guidance for information requirements and chemical safety assessment. Guidance for the implementation of REACH. Chapter R.19: Uncertainty analysis in the Chemical Safety Assessment. Helsinki, Finland, May 2008. www.echa.europa.eu. Accessed Dec 2016
  47. 47.
    Evans RM, Scholze M, Kortenkamp A (2015) Examining the feasibility of mixture risk assessment: a case study using a tiered approach with data of 67 pesticides from the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). Food Chem Toxicol 84:260–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tarazona JV, Vega MM (2002) Hazard and risk assessment of chemicals for terrestrial ecosystems. Toxicology 181:187–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Urban DJ, Cook NJ (1986) Standard evaluation procedure for ecological risk assessment. Hazard Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2010) EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR); Scientific Opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA J 8(10):1821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues) (2013) Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA J 11(7):3290, 186 pCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2015) FSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2015. Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target arthropods. EFSA J 13(2):3996, 212 ppGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Forbes VE, Calow P, Sibly RM (2008) The extrapolation problem and how population modeling can help. Environ Toxicol Chem 27(10):1987–1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Forbes VE, Calow P, Grimm V, Hayashi TI, Jager T, Katholm A, Palmqvist A, Pastorok R, Salvito D, Sibly R, Spromberg J (2011) Adding value to ecological risk assessment with population modeling. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 17(2):287–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Hommen U, Baveco JM, Galic N, van den Brink PJ (2010) Potential application of ecological models in the European environmental risk assessment of chemicals I: review of protection goals in EU directives and regulations. Integr Environ Assess Manag 6(3):325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Nienstedt K, Brock T, van Wensem J, Montforts M, Hart A, Aagaard A, Alix A, Boesten J, Bopp S, Brown C, Capri E, Forbes V, Kopp H, Liess M, Luttik R, Maltby L, Sousa J, Streissl F, Hardy AR (2012) Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides. Sci Total Environ 415:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Maltby L (2013) Ecosystem services and the protection, restoration, and management of ecosystems exposed to chemical stressors. Environ Toxicol Chem 32(5):974–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    MEA, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brock T (2013) Priorities to improve the ecological risk assessment and management for pesticides in surface water. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9(3):e64–e74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2015) National Ecosystem Services Classification System (NESCS): Framework Design and Policy Application. Office of water/Office of Research and Development. EPA-800-R-15-002Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    EC, European Commission (2013) Overview of CAP Reform 2014–2020. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013_en. Accessed Dec 2016
  62. 62.
    Grêt-Regamey A, Weibel B, Kienast F, Rabe SE, Zulian G (2015) A tiered approach for mapping ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 13:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    EC, European Commission (2010) Europe 2020: a European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Available at: http://www.efesme.org/europe-2020-a-strategy-for-smart-sustainable-and-inclusive-growth. Accessed Dec 2016
  64. 64.
    Stirling A (1998) Risk at a turning point? J Risk Res 1(2):97–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Walker WE, Harremoes P, Rotmans J, Van der Sluijs JP, MBA VA, Janssen P, Krayer von Krauss MP (2003) Defining uncertainty a conceptual basis for uncertainty management in model-based decision support. Integrated Assess 4(1):5e17Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Raybould A (2010) Reducing uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for transgenic crops: more ecological research or clearer environmental risk assessment? GM Crops 1(1):25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Funtowicz S, Ravetz JR (2003) Post-normal science. International Society for Ecological Economics (ed), Online Encyclopedia of Ecological Economics at: http://isecoeco.org/pdf/pstnormsc.pdf. Accessed Dec 2016
  69. 69.
    Grandjean P (2004) Underestimation of risk due to exposure misclassification. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 17:131–136Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hart A, Gosling JP, Boobis A, Coggon D, Craig P, Jones D (2010) Development of a framework for evaluation and expression of uncertainties in hazard and risk assessment. Final Report of Food Standards Agency Project Number T01056Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Van Der Sluijs JP, Craye M, Funtowicz S, Kloprogge P, Ravetz J, Risbey J (2005) Combining quantitative and qualitative measures of uncertainty in model-based environmental assessment: the NUSAP system. Risk Anal 25(2):481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Chatfielf C (2006) Model uncertainty. Encyclopedia of EnvironmetricsGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Saltelli A, Guimarães Pereira A, Van der Sluijs JP, Funtowicz S (2013) What do I make of your Latinorum? Sensitivity auditing of mathematical modelling. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 9(2/3/4):213–234Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Mowrer HT (2000) Uncertainty in natural resource decision support systems: sources, interpretation and importance. Comput Electron Agr 27:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Frewer LJ, Fischer ARH, van den Brink PJ, Byrne P, Brock T, Brown C, Crocker J, Goerlitz G, Hart A, Scholderer J, Solomon K (2008) Potential for the adoption of probabilistic risk assessments by end-users and decision-makers. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J 14(1):166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    EUPRA, EU Pesticide Risk Assessment workshop (2001) Probabilistic risk assessment for pesticides in Europe. Implementation and research needs. Report from the European Workshop on Probabilistic Risk Assessment for the Environmental Impacts of Plant Protection Products, The Netherlands, 109Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. WileyGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Ciffroy P, Alfonso B, Altenpohl A, Banjac Z, Bierkens J, Brochot C, Critto A, De Wilde T, Fait G, Fierens T, Garratt J, Giubilato E, Grange E, Johansson E, Radomyski A, Reschwann K, Suciu N, Van Holderbeke M, Verdonck F, Vlajic A (2016) Modelling the exposure to chemicals for risk assessment: a comprehensive library of multimedia and PBPK models for integration, prediction, uncertainty and sensitivity analysis – the MERLIN-Expo tool. Sci Total Environ 568:770–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Dubus IG, Brown CD, Beulke S, Turner NL (2002) Uncertainty and probabilistic approaches to pesticide fate modelling. Cranfield Centre for Ecochemistry research report for DEFRA PL0548, Cranfield University, Silsoe, UKGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Péry ARR, Schüürmann G, Ciffroy P, Faust M, Backhaus T, Aicher L, et al (2016) Perspectives for integrating human and environmental risk assessment and synergies with socio-economic analysis. Sci Total Environ 456:307–316Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    WHO, World Health Organization (2001) Integrated Risk Assessment. Report prepared for the WHO/UNEP/ILO International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS). International Programme on Chemical Safety, Geneva, Switzerland (WHO/IPCS/IRA/01/12). Available at: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/new_issues/ira/en/. Accessed Dec 2016
  82. 82.
    Ciffroy P, Péry ARR, Roth N (2015) Perspectives for integrating human and environmental exposure assessments. Sci Total Environ 568:512–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    EFSA, European Food Safety Authority (2015) Harmonisation of human and ecological risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicalsGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Suter GW, Vermeire T, Munns WR, Sekizawa J (2005) An integrated framework for health and ecological risk assessment. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 207(2):611–616CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Jongeneelen F, ten Berge W, Boogaard PJ (2013) Computational toxicology: Chapter 8. Interpretation of human biological monitoring data using a newly developed generic physiological-based toxicokinetic model: examples of simulations with carbofuran and methyl ethyl ketone. Elsevier Inc. ChaptersGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Lilienblum W, Dekant W, Foth H, Gebel T, Hengstler JG, Kahl R, Kramer PJ, Schweinfurth H, Wollin KM (2008) Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH). Arch Toxicol 82(4):211–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Beyer J, Petersen K, Song Y, Ruus A, Grung M, Bakke T, Tollefsen KE (2014) Environmental risk assessment of combined effects in aquatic ecotoxicology: a discussion paper. Mar Environ Res 96:81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kienzler A, Berggren A, Bessem J, Bopp S, Van der Linden S, Worth A (2014) Assessment of mixtures – review of regulatory requirements and guidance (EUR26675 EN)Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Wilks MF, Roth N, Aicher L, Faust M, Papadaki P, Marchis A, Calliera M, Ginebreda A, Andres S, Kühne R, Schüürmann G, HEROIC consortium (2015) White paper on the promotion of an integrated risk assessment concept in European regulatory frameworks for chemicals. Sci Total Environ 521–522:211–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Calliera M, Marchis A, Sacchettini G, Capri E (2016) Stakeholder consultations and opportunities for integrating socio-behavioural factors into the pesticide risk analysis process. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 23:2937–2947CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicoleta Alina Suciu
    • 1
  • Silvia Panizzi
    • 1
  • Philippe Ciffroy
    • 2
  • Antoni Ginebreda
    • 3
  • Alice Tediosi
    • 4
  • Damià Barceló
    • 3
  • Ettore Capri
    • 5
  1. 1.DiSTASUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuorePiacenzaItaly
  2. 2.EDF R&D, National Hydraulics and Environment LaboratoryChatouFrance
  3. 3.Department of Environmental ChemistryInstitute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research, IDAEA-CSICBarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Aeiforia srlGariga di PodenzanoItaly
  5. 5.OPERA Research Center, Università Cattolica del Sacro CuorePiacenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations