Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment for Risk Governance Purposes; Across What Do We Integrate?

Lebret, Erik

doi:10.3390/ijerph13010071

Cited by 12 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(28 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A systematic selection of relevant frameworks would prove challenging because concepts and terminology vary across scientific domains. Through cognitive distance between experts from different domains, different words are used for (nearly) similar concepts and the same words for different concepts (Lebret, ). Moreover, in some academic fields, main thoughts and concepts are published in books rather than in peer‐reviewed journal articles or proceedings.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why do countries regulate, or prefer to regulate, environmental health risks such as radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and endocrine disruptors differently? A wide variety of theories, models, and frameworks can be used to help answer this question, though the resulting answer will strongly depend on the theoretical perspective that is applied. In this theoretical review, we will explore eight conceptual frameworks, from different areas of science, which will offer eight different potential explanations as to why international differences occur in environmental health risk management. We are particularly interested in frameworks that could shed light on the role of scientific expertise within risk management processes. The frameworks included in this review are the Risk Assessment Paradigm, research into the roles of experts as policy advisors, the Psychometric Paradigm, the Cultural Theory of Risk, participatory approaches to risk assessment and risk management, the Advocacy Coalition Framework, the Social Amplification of Risk Framework, and Hofstede's Model of National Cultures. We drew from our knowledge and experiences regarding a diverse set of academic disciplines to pragmatically assemble a multidisciplinary set of frameworks. From the ideas and concepts offered by the eight frameworks, we derive pertinent questions to be used in further empirical work and we present an overarching framework to depict the various links that could be drawn between the frameworks.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This type of indicator is a subcategory of an environmental performance indicator (EPI). The extent of exceedance (EE) indicator can also be seen as a distance to target indicator or a margin of (internal) exposure indicator [ 32 , 33 , 34 ]. In the current paper, we used as HBGV the HBM-I values from the German Human Biomonitoring Commission [ 19 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of Policy Relevant Human Biomonitoring Indicators for Chemical Exposure in the European Population

Buekers

David

Koppen

et al. 2018

IJERPH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Union’s 7th Environmental Action Programme (EAP) aims to assess and minimize environmental health risks from the use of hazardous chemicals by 2020. From this angle, policy questions like whether an implemented policy to reduce chemical exposure has had an effect over time, whether the health of people in specific regions or subpopulations is at risk, or whether the body burden of chemical substances (the internal exposure) varies with, for example, time, country, sex, age, or socio-economic status, need to be answered. Indicators can help to synthesize complex scientific information into a few key descriptors with the purpose of providing an answer to a non-expert audience. Human biomonitoring (HBM) indicators at the European Union (EU) level are unfortunately lacking. Within the Horizon2020 European Human Biomonitoring project HBM4EU, an approach to develop European HBM indicators was worked out. To learn from and ensure interoperability with other European indicators, 15 experts from the HBM4EU project (German Umweltbundesamt (UBA), Flemish research institute VITO, University of Antwerp, European Environment Agency (EEA)), and the World Health Organization (WHO), European Core Health Indicator initiative (ECHI), Eurostat, Swiss ETH Zurich and the Czech environmental institute CENIA, joined and contributed to a workshop, held in June 2017 at the EEA in Copenhagen. First, selection criteria were defined to evaluate when and if results of internal chemical exposure measured by HBM, need to be translated into a European HBM-based indicator. Two main aspects are the HBM indicator’s relevance for policy, society, health, and the quality of the biomarker data (availability, comparability, ease of interpretation). Secondly, an approach for the calculation of the indicators was designed. Two types of indicators were proposed: (‘sum) indicator(s) of internal exposure’ derived directly from HBM biomarker concentrations and ‘indicators for health risk’, comparing HBM concentrations to HBM health-based guidance values (HBM HBGVs). In the latter case, both the percentage of the studied population exceeding the HBM HBGVs (PE) and the extent of exceedance (EE), calculated as the population’s exposure level divided by the HBM HBGV, can be calculated. These indicators were applied to two examples of hazardous chemicals: bisphenol A (BPA) and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), which both have high policy and societal relevance and for which high quality published data were available (DEMOCOPHES, Swedish monitoring campaign). European HBM indicators help to summarize internal exposure to chemical substances among the European population and communicate to what degree environmental policies are successful in keeping internal exposures sufficiently low. The main aim of HBM indicators is to allow follow-up of chemical safety in Europe.

show abstract

“…Current risk assessment frameworks are designed primarily for the evaluation of one chemical at a time ( Clahsen et al. 2019 ; Lebret 2015 ), even though most human exposures, especially in the environmental or occupational setting, occur in the context of mixtures ( Carpenter et al. 2002 ; Martin et al.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Current risk assessment frameworks are designed primarily for the evaluation of one chemical at a time (Clahsen et al 2019;Lebret 2015), even though most human exposures, especially in the environmental or occupational setting, occur in the context of mixtures (Carpenter et al 2002;Martin et al 2013). It is well recognized that an individual chemical-based focus can underestimate risks because interaction among the components in a mixture can result in complex and substantial changes in the apparent properties of the constituents (Kortenkamp and Faust 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Characterization and Probabilistic Concentration–Response Modeling of Complex Environmental Mixtures Using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) Data from Organotypic in Vitro Human Stem Cell Assays

Hsieh

Chen

Rusyn

et al. 2021

Environ Health Perspect

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Risk assessment of chemical mixtures or complex substances remains a major methodological challenge due to lack of available hazard or exposure data. Therefore, risk assessors usually infer hazard or risk from data on the subset of constituents with available toxicity values. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the validity of the widely used traditional mixtures risk assessment paradigms, Independent Action (IA) and Concentration Addition (CA), with new approach methodologies (NAMs) data from human cell-based in vitro assays. METHODS: A diverse set of 42 chemicals was tested both individually and as mixtures for functional and cytotoxic effects in vitro. A panel of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSCs)-derived models (hepatocytes, cardiomyocytes, endothelial, and neurons) and one primary cell type (HUVEC) were used. Bayesian concentration-response modeling of individual chemicals or their mixtures was performed for a total of 47 phenotypes to derive point-ofdeparture (POD) values. Probabilistic IA or CA was conducted to estimate the mixture effects based on the bioactivity profiles from the individual chemicals and compared with mixture bioactivity. RESULTS: All mixtures showed significant bioactivity, even though some were constructed using individual chemical concentrations considered "low" or "safe." Even though CA is much more accurate as a predictor of mixture effects in comparison with IA, with CA-based POD typically within an order of magnitude of the actual mixture, in some cases, the bioactivity of the mixtures appeared to be much greater than that of their components under either additivity assumption. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that CA is a preferred first approximation for predicting mixture toxicity when data for all constituents are available. However, because the accuracy of additivity assumptions varies greatly across phenotypes, we posit that mixtures and complex substances need to be directly tested for their hazard potential. NAMs provide a practical solution that rapidly yields highly informative data for mixtures risk assessment.

show abstract

Integrated Environmental Health Impact Assessment for Risk Governance Purposes; Across What Do We Integrate?

Cited by 12 publications

References 21 publications

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective

Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective

Development of Policy Relevant Human Biomonitoring Indicators for Chemical Exposure in the European Population

Risk Characterization and Probabilistic Concentration–Response Modeling of Complex Environmental Mixtures Using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) Data from Organotypic in Vitro Human Stem Cell Assays

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About