Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Health risk assessment

P H Abelson1

  • 1American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC 20005.

Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology : RTP
|April 1, 1993
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Chemical risk assessments in the U.S. often exaggerate hazards due to questionable assumptions. This leads to potentially trillions in wasted resources and flawed regulations based on rodent studies.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Biological warfare.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·1999
Same author

A potential phosphate crisis.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·1999
Same author

A third technological revolution.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·1998
Same author

Proposed air pollutant standards.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·1997
Same author

Pharmaceuticals based on biotechnology.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·1996
Same author

Great transitions.

Science (New York, N.Y.)·1995

Area of Science:

  • Environmental toxicology
  • Risk assessment science

Background:

  • Chemical risk assessment in the U.S. relies on conservative assumptions.
  • The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses these assumptions for regulation.
  • These assumptions may lead to significant financial waste.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the scientific basis of current U.S. chemical risk assessment procedures.
  • To identify potential exaggerations in human health risk calculations.
  • To question the reliance on specific rodent models and maximum tolerated doses.

Main Methods:

  • Analysis of regulatory assumptions used by the EPA.
  • Examination of rodent study protocols, particularly those using maximum tolerated doses.
  • Comparison of rodent responses to human physiological data.

Related Experiment Videos

Main Results:

  • Current risk assessment methods involve "conservative" assumptions lacking scientific basis.
  • Rodent models, like B6C3F1 mice, show high spontaneous tumor rates (e.g., liver cancer) not reflective of human populations.
  • Specific chemicals like trichloroethylene and butadiene have questionable risk assessments based on these models.
  • Unique rodent mechanisms (e.g., male rat kidney tumors) can lead to spurious human risk assessments.

Conclusions:

  • The methodology for assessing chemical risks to humans in the U.S. is potentially flawed.
  • Overestimation of chemical hazards can result from using overly sensitive rodent strains and high doses.
  • Revising risk assessment protocols is crucial to avoid unnecessary financial expenditure and ensure accurate regulation.