Quantitative estimates of risk for noncancer endpoints.

While quantitative estimates of risk have been a standard practice in cancer risk assessment for many years, no similar practice is evident in noncancer risk assessment. We use two recent examples involving methylmercury and arsenic to illustrate the negative impact of this discrepancy on risk communication and cost-benefit analysis. We argue for a more balanced treatment of cancer and noncancer risks and suggest an approach for reaching this goal.