The Concept of Data Utility in Health Risk Assessment: A Multi-Disciplinary Perspective

Human and ecological health risk assessments and the decisions that stem from them require the acquisition and analysis of data. In agencies that are responsible for health risk decision-making, data (and/or opinions/judgments) are obtained from sources such as scientific literature, analytical and process measurements, expert elicitation, inspection findings, and public and private research institutions. Although the particulars of conducting health risk assessments of given disciplines may be dramatically different, a common concern is the subjective nature of judging data utility. Often risk assessors are limited to available data that may not be completely appropriate to address the question being asked. Data utility refers to the ability of available data to support a risk-based decision for a particular risk assessment. This article familiarizes the audience with the concept of data utility and is intended to raise the awareness of data collectors (e.g., researchers), risk assessors, and risk managers to data utility issues in health risk assessments so data collection and use will be improved. In order to emphasize the cross-cutting nature of data utility, the discussion has not been organized into a classical partitioning of risk assessment concerns as being either human health- or ecological health-oriented, as per the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Superfund Program.     

Approaches for Integrated Risk Assessment

Recognizing the need to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of risk assessments globally, the World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Commission, and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development developed a collaborative partnership to foster integration of assessment approaches used to evaluate human health and ecological risks. The objectives of this effort included: improving understanding of the benefits of integration, identifying obstacles to the integration process, and engaging key agencies, organizations, and scientific societies to promote integration. A framework with supporting documentation was developed to describe an approach for integration. Four case studies were constructed to illustrate how integrated risk assessments might be conducted for chemical and nonchemical stressors. The concepts and approaches developed in the project were evaluated in an international workshop. The goal of this effort was international acceptance of guidance for integrated risk assessment.     

Effects‐initiated assessments are not risk assessments

True risk assessments address the probability of a future risk occurring given a certain set of circumstances. However, “effects‐initiated assessments”; or “retrospective assessments”; often are improperly included under the broad appellation of “risk assessment”; and are conducted when an apparently adverse effect is seen in some environmental component and the question of cause (i.e., etiology) is raised. Base line risk assessments at Superfund sites or for Natural Resource Damage Assessments are examples of effects‐initiated assessments. We argue here that this type of study is not a risk assessment, either by strict definition of terminology or by logical approach taken in answering the posed question (s), and should more properly be called “diagnostic ecology.”; Diagnostic ecology starts from the premise that ecological effects have occurred and exposure to a Stressor has taken place. The problem then is to pose all possible etiologies and utilize deductive logic to systematically eliminate each agent except for one as the actual cause. A risk assessment, on the other hand, employs inductive reasoning. That is, hypotheses are generated about the possible sources of a stressor and the possible outcome if exposure occurs. Both exercises require an understanding of the ecological relationships of the various components in the ecosystem, both need an understanding of die cause‐and‐effect relationships of agents, and both require a proper framing of the questions being asked. However, risk assessors should not try to fit all environmental impact assessments into a single framework, but rather should recognize that biomedical techniques are better suited for solving diagnostic riddles than are prospective risk assessment approaches.     

Integrated Risk Assessment — Results from an International Workshop

The World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety and international partners have developed a framework for integrated assessment of human health and ecological risks and four case studies. An international workshop was convened to consider how ecological and health risk assessments might be integrated, the benefits of and obstacles to integration, and the research and mechanisms needed to facilitate implementation of integrated risk assessment. Using the case studies, workshop participants identified a number of opportunities to integrate the assessment process. Improved assessment quality, efficiency, and predictive capability were considered to be principal benefits of integration. Obstacles to acceptance and implementation of integrated risk assessment included the disciplinary and organizational barriers between ecological and health disciplines. A variety of mechanisms were offered to overcome these obstacles. Research recommendations included harmonization of exposure characterization and surveillance methods and models, development of common risk endpoints across taxa, improved understanding of mechanisms of effect at multiple scales of biological organization, and development of methods to facilitate comparison of risks among endpoints.     

Extrapolation in Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessments: Proceedings of a Symposium

A symposium was conducted in April 1998 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory (NHEERL) to explore issues of extrapolation in human health and ecological risk assessments. Over the course of three and one half days, leading health and ecology experts presented and discussed research methods and approaches for extrapolating data among taxa and across levels of biological organization, through time, and across spatial scales. The intended result of this symposium was enhanced interaction among a diverse array of scientists, policymakers, and risk assessors to promote identification of approaches for reducing the uncertainties of extrapolation in risk assessment.     

Ten Years of the Relative Risk Model and Regional Scale Ecological Risk Assessment

It has been 10 years since the publication of the relative risk model (RRM) for regional scale ecological risk assessment. The approach has since been used successfully for a variety of freshwater, marine, and terrestrial environments in North America, South America, and Australia. During this period the types of stressors have been expanded to include more than contaminants. Invasive species, habitat loss, stream alteration and blockage, temperature, change in land use, and climate have been incorporated into the assessments. Major developments in the RRM have included the extensive use of geographical information systems, uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo techniques, and its application to retrospective assessments to determine causation. The future uses of the RRM include assessments for forestry and conservation management, an increasing use in invasive species evaluation, and in sustainability. Developments in risk communication, the use of Bayesian approaches, and in uncertainty analyses are on the horizon.     

Genotoxicity risk assessment: a proposed classification strategy

Recent advances in genetic toxicity (mutagenicity) testing methods and in approaches to performing risk assessment are prompting a renewed effort to harmonize genotoxicity risk assessment across the world. The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first published Guidelines for Mutagenicity Risk Assessment in 1986 that focused mainly on transmissible germ cell genetic risk. Somatic cell genetic risk has also been a risk consideration, usually in support of carcinogenicity assessments. EPA and other international regulatory bodies have published mutagenicity testing requirements for agents (pesticides, pharmaceuticals, etc.) to generate data for use in genotoxicity risk assessments. The scheme that follows provides a proposed harmonization approach in which genotoxicity assessments are fully developed within the risk assessment paradigm used by EPA, and sets out a process that integrates newer thinking in testing battery design with the risk assessment process. A classification strategy for agents based on inherent genotoxicity, dose-responses observed in the data, and an exposure analysis is proposed. The classification leads to an initial level of concern for genotoxic risk to humans. A total risk characterization is performed using all relevant toxicity data and a comprehensive exposure evaluation in association with the genotoxicity data. The result of this characterization is ultimately used to generate a final level of concern for genotoxic risk to humans. The final level of concern and characterized genotoxicity risk assessment are communicated to decision makers for possible regulatory action(s) and to the public.     

Framework for the Integration of Health and Ecological Risk Assessment

The World Health Organization's International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have developed a collaborative partnership to foster integration of assessment approaches for human health and ecological risks. This paper presents the framework developed by that group. Integration provides coherent expressions of assessment results, incorporates the interdependence of humans and the environment, uses sentinel organisms, and improves the efficiency and quality of assessments relative to independent human health and ecological risk assessments. The paper describes how integration can occur within each component of risk assessment, and communicates the benefits of integration at each point. The goal of this effort is to promote the use of this internationally accepted guidance as a basis for harmonization of risk assessment.     

Use of Indicators in Ecological Risk Assessments for Persistent,Bioaccumulative Toxicants

This paper synthesizes several presentations on the use of indicators in ecological risk assessments for persistent, bioaccumulative toxicants (PBTs). The presentations were organized around two chemical case studies: (1) mercury, and (2) compounds that exhibit an Ah-receptor based mode-of-action. Presenters summarized the current practice of ecological risk assessment for these compounds and described research on known or suspected impacts. In addition, this paper addresses three special topics that apply broadly to all PBTs: (1) the convergence of ecological assessment and ecological risk assessment, (2) integration of ecological and human health risk assessment, and (3) risk assessments for population-level effects.     

Scientific data and theories for salmonellosis dose–response assessment

An “expansive” risk assessment approach is illustrated, characterizing dose–response relationships for salmonellosis in light of the full body of evidence for human and murine superorganisms. Risk assessments often require analysis of costs and benefits for supporting public health decisions. Decision-makers and the public need to understand uncertainty in such analyses for two reasons. Uncertainty analyses provide a range of possibilities within a framework of present scientific knowledge, thus helping to avoid undesirable consequences associated with the selected policies. And, it encourages the risk assessors to scrutinize all available data and models, thus helping avoid subjective or systematic errors. Without the full analysis of uncertainty, decisions could be biased by judgments based solely on default assumptions, beliefs, and statistical analyses of selected correlative data. Alternative data and theories that incorporate variability and heterogeneity for the human and murine superorganisms, particularly colonization resistance, are emerging as major influences for microbial risk assessment. Salmonellosis risk assessments are often based on conservative default models derived from selected sets of outbreak data that overestimate illness. Consequently, the full extent of uncertainty of estimates of annual number of illnesses is not incorporated in risk assessments and the presently used models may be incorrect.     

Are all risk perceptions created equal? Comparing general risk assessments and specific risk assessments associated with climate change

For policy-making to address public risk perceptions effectively, policy-makers must have a clear understanding of the nature of public risks. Public opinion polls regularly solicit perceptions of risk toward a variety of topics. These assessments, though, tend to be general with no specificity offered for a nuanced interpretation. Yet, there is good reason to assume that risk perceptions are not based on the same criteria. If true, policy-makers may be unable to address risks adequately without a better understanding of the drivers of risk perceptions. This project focuses on two primary research questions: (1) Does the public weigh the risk associated with global climate change differently in specific sub-domains? (2) If so, which climate change sub-domains are various members of the public most concerned about when offering a general assessment of global climate change risk? We assess public risk perceptions of climate change in three sub-domains—public health, economic development, and environment—and find that two of the three sub-domains are predictors of a general assessment of risk.     

Challenges for Risk Assessors

At the early part of the 21st century, occupational safety and health risk assessors face a variety of challenges. In addition to technical issues, the challenges for risk assessors include: assessment of risks of mixtures/and synergistic effects; incorporation of biological information into risk assessments; development of different ways of presenting risk information to better inform policy makers and the public; better expressions of uncertainty and assumptions; and harmonization of assessments across agencies and countries. All of these challenges will occur against a background of unfolding understanding of human and other genomes. Risk assessors will be motivated and pressured to use genomic and related technologies, but ethical, social, and technical issues need to be addressed before widespread use.     

The Anna Karenina Principle Applied to Ecological Risk Assessments of Multiple Stressors

Successful ecological risk assessments are all alike; every unsuccessful ecological risk assessment fails in its own way. Tolstoy posited a similar analogy in his novel Anna Karenina: “Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.” By that, Tolstoy meant that for a marriage to be happy, it had to succeed in several key aspects. Failure on even one of these aspects, and the marriage is doomed. In this paper, I argue that the Anna Karenina principle also applies to ecological risk assessments involving multiple stressors. In particular, I argue that multiple stressors assessments and environmental decision making will not have a happy marriage unless the following can be achieved: (1) there must be societal and political buy-in to the assessment and decision-making process; (2) the assessment must have the latitude to consider a wide range of stressors and potential risk management options; (3) there must be a commitment to following a rigorous focusing of the assessment and to expending resources for model development and data collection; and (4) an adaptive management strategy must be adopted wherein risk management actions are undertaken, system response intensively observed and assessed, and revised management actions taken as appropriate. Failure to meet any of the above criteria for success will doom a multiple stressors assessment and prevent its use in effective decision-making.     

Understanding Background in Hazardous Waste Site Risk Assessments: Getting Back to Basics

Comparing the concentrations of detected constituents in the environmental media of a contaminated site with those of background has been an important part of risk assessments over the last two decades. Despite its established place in the risk assessment process, the background comparison exercise nevertheless continues to create a source of friction amongst parties with vested interests in a site's evaluation. Challenges to the background comparison may reveal an agency's hidden agenda or may demonstrate that essential background concepts are either not well understood or have been forgotten.     

Analysis and Portrayal of Uncertainty in a Food-Web Exposure Model

The results of quantitative risk assessments are key factors in a risk manager's decision of the necessity to implement actions to reduce risk. The extent of the uncertainty in the assessment will play a large part in the degree of confidence a risk manager has in the reported significance and probability of a given risk. The two main sources of uncertainty in such risk assessments are variability and incertitude. In this paper we use two methods, a second-order two-dimensional Monte Carlo analysis and probability bounds analysis, to investigate the impact of both types of uncertainty on the results of a food-web exposure model. We demonstrate how the full extent of uncertainty in a risk estimate can be fully portrayed in a way that is useful to risk managers. We show that probability bounds analysis is a useful tool for identifying the parameters that contribute the most to uncertainty in a risk estimate and how it can be used to complement established practices in risk assessment. We conclude by promoting the use of probability analysis in conjunction with Monte Carlo analyses as a method for checking how plausible Monte Carlo results are in the full context of uncertainty.     

Best practice in alien species risk assessment: a comment on Leung et al. ()

The TEASI model is presented in Leung et al. (2012; TEASIng apart alien species risk assessments: a framework for best practices. Ecol. Lett., 15 , 1475) as a framework for best practice in alien species risk assessment. This is not supported by the paper's review as it does not define good, bad or best practice and therefore cannot logically make this claim.     

What Can Be Done to Ensure the Usefulness of Epidemiologic Data for Risk Assessment Purposes?

Epidemiologic studies can play a central role in risk assessments. They are used in all risk assessment phases: hazard identification, dose-response, and exposure assessment. Epidemiologic studies have often been the first to show that a particular environmental exposure is a hazard to health. They have numerous advantages with respect to other sources of data which are used in risk assessments, the most important being that they do not require the assumption that they are generalizable to humans. For this reason, fewer and lower uncertainty factors may be appropriate in risk characterization based on epidemiologic studies. Unfortunately, epidemiologic studies have numerous problems, the most important being that the exposures are often not precisely measured. This article presents in detail the advantages of and problems with epidemiologic studies. It discusses two approaches to ensure their usefulness, biomarkers and an ordinance which requires baseline and subsequent surveillance of possible exposures and health effects from newly sited potentially polluting facilities. Biomarkers are biochemical measures of exposure, susceptibility factors, or preclinical pathological changes. Biomarkers are a way of dealing with the problems of poor measures, differential susceptibility and lack of early measures of disease occurrence that inherent in many environmental epidemiologic studies. The advantages of biomarkers is they can provide objective information on exposure days, months or even years later and evidence of pathology perhaps years earlier. The ordinance makes possible the use of a powerful epidemiologic study design, the prospective cohort study, where confounder(s) are best measured, and exposures, pathological changes, and health effects can be detected as soon as possible.     

Axes of Extrapolation in Risk Assessment

Extrapolation in risk assessment involves the use of data and information to estimate or predict something that has not been measured or observed. Reasons for extrapolation include that the number of combinations of environmental stressors and possible receptors is too large to characterize risks comprehensively, that direct characterization is sometimes impossible, and that the power to characterize risk in a particular situation can be enhanced by using information obtained in other similar situations. Three types of extrapolation are common in risk assessments: biological (including between taxa and across levels of biological organization), temporal, and spatial. They can be thought of conceptually as the axes of a 3-dimensional graph defining the state space of biological, temporal, and spatial scales within which extrapolations are made. Each of these types of extrapolation can introduce uncertainties into risk assessments. Such uncertainties may be reduced through synergistic research facilitated by the sharing of methods, models, and data used by human health and ecological scientists     

Selected applications of reduced uncertainty factors in noncancer risk assessment

Guidelines have been developed within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for applying uncertainty factors to noncancer risk assessments. In many recent cases, reduced values for uncertainty factors of less than 10 have been used. The specific circumstances that justify reduced uncertainty are: partial definition of the sensitive subpopulation among humans, partial database limitations, use of a minimal LOAEL, risk assessment for an essential nutrient, and risk assessments based upon studies in nonhuman primates. Details of the rationale for each of these circumstances are provided.