A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement

Authors

• Tracey J. Woodruff, University of California, San Francisco
• Swati D.G. Rayasam, University of California, San Francisco
• Daniel A. Axelrad
• Patricia D. Koman, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
• Nicholas Chartres, University of California, San Francisco
• Deborah H. Bennett, University of California, Davis
• Linda S. Birnbaum, Duke University
• Phil Brown, Northeastern University
• Courtney C. Carignan, Michigan State University
• Courtney Cooper, University of California, San Francisco
• Carl F. Cranor, University of California, Riverside
• Miriam L. Diamond, University of Toronto
• Shari Franjevic, Clean Production Action
• Eve C. Gartner, Earthjustice
• Dale Hattis, Clark UniversityFollow
• Russ Hauser, Harvard University
• Wendy Heiger-Bernyas, Boston University
• Rashmi Joglekar, Earthjustice
• Juleen Lam, California State University, East Bay
• Jonathan I. Levy, Boston University
• Patrick M. MacRoy, Defend Our Health
• Maricel V. Maffini
• Emily C. Marquez, Pesticide Action Network
• Rachel Morello-Frosch, University of California, Berkeley
• Keeve E. Nachman, Johns Hopkins University
• Greylin H. Nielsen, Boston University
• Catherine Oksas, University of California, San Francisco
• Dimitri Panagopoulos Abrahamsson, University of California, San Francisco
• Heather B. Patisaul, North Carolina State University
• Sharyle Patton, Commonweal
• Joshua F. Robinson, University of California, San Francisco
• Kathryn M. Rodgers, Silent Spring Institute
• Mark S. Rossi, Clean Production Action
• Ruthann A. Rudel, Silent Spring Institute
• Jennifer B. Sass, Natural Resources Defense Council
• Sheela Sathyanarayana, University of Washington
• Ted Schettler, Science and Environmental Health Network
• Rachel M. Shaffer, University of Washington
• Bhavna Shamasunder, Occidental College
• Peggy Shepard, WE ACT for Environmental Justice
• Kristin Shrader-Frechette, University of Notre Dame
• Gina M. Solomon, University of California, San Francisco
• Wilma A. Subra, Louisiana Environmental Action Network
• Laura N. Vandenberg, University of Massachusetts Amherst
• Julia R. Varshavsky, Northeastern University
• Roberta F. White, Boston University
• Ken Zarker, Washington State University
• Lauren Zeise, California Environmental Protection Agency

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The manufacture and production of industrial chemicals continues to increase, with hundreds of thousands of chemicals and chemical mixtures used worldwide, leading to widespread population exposures and resultant health impacts. Low-wealth communities and communities of color often bear disproportionate burdens of exposure and impact; all compounded by regulatory delays to the detriment of public health. Multiple authoritative bodies and scientific consensus groups have called for actions to prevent harmful exposures via improved policy approaches. We worked across multiple disciplines to develop consensus recommendations for health-protective, scientific approaches to reduce harmful chemical exposures, which can be applied to current US policies governing industrial chemicals and environmental pollutants. This consensus identifies five principles and scientific recommendations for improving how agencies like the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approach and conduct hazard and risk assessment and risk management analyses: (1) the financial burden of data generation for any given chemical on (or to be introduced to) the market should be on the chemical producers that benefit from their production and use; (2) lack of data does not equate to lack of hazard, exposure, or risk; (3) populations at greater risk, including those that are more susceptible or more highly exposed, must be better identified and protected to account for their real-world risks; (4) hazard and risk assessments should not assume existence of a “safe” or “no-risk” level of chemical exposure in the diverse general population; and (5) hazard and risk assessments must evaluate and account for financial conflicts of interest in the body of evidence. While many of these recommendations focus specifically on the EPA, they are general principles for environmental health that could be adopted by any agency or entity engaged in exposure, hazard, and risk assessment. We also detail recommendations for four priority areas in companion papers (exposure assessment methods, human variability assessment, methods for quantifying non-cancer health outcomes, and a framework for defining chemical classes). These recommendations constitute key steps for improved evidence-based environmental health decision-making and public health protection. © 2022, The Author(s).

This article has been published as part of Environmental Health Volume 21 Supplement 1, 2022: A Science-Based Agenda for Health-Protective Chemical Assessments and Decisions.

Publication Title

Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source

Publication Date

2023

Volume

21

ISSN

1476-069X

DOI

10.1186/s12940-022-00930-3

Keywords

chemicals, conflicts of interest, environmental health, environmental justice, EPA, hazard identification, health equity, risk assessment, TSCA

Repository Citation

Woodruff, Tracey J.; Rayasam, Swati D.G.; Axelrad, Daniel A.; Koman, Patricia D.; Chartres, Nicholas; Bennett, Deborah H.; Birnbaum, Linda S.; Brown, Phil; Carignan, Courtney C.; Cooper, Courtney; Cranor, Carl F.; Diamond, Miriam L.; Franjevic, Shari; Gartner, Eve C.; Hattis, Dale; Hauser, Russ; Heiger-Bernyas, Wendy; Joglekar, Rashmi; Lam, Juleen; Levy, Jonathan I.; MacRoy, Patrick M.; Maffini, Maricel V.; Marquez, Emily C.; Morello-Frosch, Rachel; Nachman, Keeve E.; Nielsen, Greylin H.; Oksas, Catherine; Abrahamsson, Dimitri Panagopoulos; Patisaul, Heather B.; Patton, Sharyle; Robinson, Joshua F.; Rodgers, Kathryn M.; Rossi, Mark S.; Rudel, Ruthann A.; Sass, Jennifer B.; Sathyanarayana, Sheela; Schettler, Ted; Shaffer, Rachel M.; Shamasunder, Bhavna; Shepard, Peggy; Shrader-Frechette, Kristin; Solomon, Gina M.; Subra, Wilma A.; Vandenberg, Laura N.; Varshavsky, Julia R.; White, Roberta F.; Zarker, Ken; and Zeise, Lauren, "A science-based agenda for health-protective chemical assessments and decisions: overview and consensus statement" (2023). Sustainability and Social Justice. 546.
https://commons.clarku.edu/faculty_idce/546

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.