Using emerging science to inform risk characterizations for wildlife within current regulatory frameworks

Abstract

Many jurisdictions have regulatory frameworks that seek to reduce the effects of environmental exposures of anthropogenic chemicals on terrestrial wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The frameworks apply for new and existing chemicals, including pesticides (prospective assessments), and to environmental contamination from releases (retrospective risk assessments). Relatively recently, there have been many scientific advances that could improve risk estimates for wildlife. Here, we briefly describe current regulations from North America (United States and Canada) and from Europe that include risk assessments for wildlife to ascertain whether they are conducive to the use of emerging science and new methods. We also provide examples where new and emerging science may be used to improve wildlife risk characterization and identify areas in need of future research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1–15. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Integrating emerging science to improve estimates of risk to wildlife from chemical exposure: What are the challenges?

“…As reflected in summaries of the various regulatory regimes for wildlife risk assessment (Johnson et al, 2024), decision-makers (typically regulatory entities) require that risk assessments address clear hypotheses from which to make decisions. Guidance and methods specific to wildlife are needed to identify the discrete information that is expected and to describe how it will be evaluated.…”

“…As a result, guidance on ecological risk assessment, including for wildlife, is relatively standardized and has not been explicitly revised to reflect new approaches. However, the review of regulatory guidance on wildlife found that many jurisdictions have flexibility to include NAMs and other emerging science if it can apply in a weight of evidence approach to enhance and augment the characterization of risk (Johnson et al, 2024).…”

“…Models must incorporate these influences (e.g., how toxicity may affect predator vigilance, nest defense, mate selection, habitat choices, etc.). The relative influence of toxicity combined with an understanding of population (metapopulation) regulating mechanisms can be integrated in Bayesian approaches where ranges of effects can be estimated (Johnson et al, 2024).…”

“…To address this impasse, the idea of organizing a workshop was conceived, which then led to work groups whose members coalesced in online meetings over time. That process resulted in a series of five reviews, each of which addressed a specific component of the risk-assessment process: problem formulation (Sample et al, 2022), effect assessment (Bean et al, 2023;Rattner et al, 2023), exposure assessment (Morrissey et al, 2023), and risk characterization (Johnson et al, 2024). The purpose of the present overview, the sixth article, is to provide the context for the various group recommendations for improving wildlife risk assessment across various regulatory regimes, by describing the perceived problems with current wildlife ecological risk assessment (WERA) practices and summarizing prospective advances.…”