Literature DB >> 26573369

Should the scope of human mixture risk assessment span legislative/regulatory silos for chemicals?

Richard M Evans1, Olwenn V Martin2, Michael Faust3, Andreas Kortenkamp4.   

Abstract

Current chemicals regulation operates almost exclusively on a chemical-by-chemical basis, however there is concern that this approach may not be sufficiently protective if two or more chemicals have the same toxic effect. Humans are indisputably exposed to more than one chemical at a time, for example to the multiple chemicals found in food, air and drinking water, and in household and consumer products, and in cosmetics. Assessment of cumulative risk to human health and/or the environment from multiple chemicals and routes can be done in a mixture risk assessment (MRA). Whilst there is a broad consensus on the basic science of mixture toxicology, the path to regulatory implementation of MRA within chemical risk assessment is less clear. In this discussion piece we pose an open question: should the scope of human MRA cross legislative remits or 'silos'? We define silos as, for instance, legislation that defines risk assessment practice for a subset of chemicals, usually on the basis of substance/product, media or process orientation. Currently any form of legal mandate for human MRA in the EU is limited to only a few pieces of legislation. We describe two lines of evidence, illustrated with selected examples, that are particularly pertinent to this question: 1) evidence that mixture effects have been shown for chemicals regulated in different silos and 2) evidence that humans are co-exposed to chemicals from different silos. We substantiate the position that, because there is no reason why chemicals allocated to specific regulatory silos would have non-overlapping risk profiles, then there is also no reason to expect that MRA limited only to chemicals within one silo can fully capture the risk that may be present to human consumers. Finally, we discuss possible options for implementation of MRA and we hope to prompt wider discussion of this issue.
Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Chemical toxicity; Chemicals regulation; Human health; Mixture risk assessment; Mixture toxicity; Risk assessment

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26573369     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.10.162

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  19 in total

1.  Responses of biomarkers in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) following exposure to environmentally relevant concentrations of complex metal mixture (Zn, Cu, Ni, Cr, Pb, Cd). Part II.

Authors:  Milda Stankevičiūtė; Gintarė Sauliutė; Tomas Makaras; Arvydas Markuckas; Tomas Virbickas; Janina Baršienė
Journal:  Ecotoxicology       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 2.823

2.  Environmental Health Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: A Visual Overview and a Renewed Call for Coordination.

Authors:  Rachel M Shaffer
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2021-07-26       Impact factor: 11.357

3.  Developing the Regulatory Utility of the Exposome: Mapping Exposures for Risk Assessment through Lifestage Exposome Snapshots (LEnS).

Authors:  Rachel M Shaffer; Marissa N Smith; Elaine M Faustman
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 4.  Current EU research activities on combined exposure to multiple chemicals.

Authors:  Stephanie K Bopp; Robert Barouki; Werner Brack; Silvia Dalla Costa; Jean-Lou C M Dorne; Paula E Drakvik; Michael Faust; Tuomo K Karjalainen; Stylianos Kephalopoulos; Jacob van Klaveren; Marike Kolossa-Gehring; Andreas Kortenkamp; Erik Lebret; Teresa Lettieri; Sofie Nørager; Joëlle Rüegg; Jose V Tarazona; Xenia Trier; Bob van de Water; Jos van Gils; Åke Bergman
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 9.621

5.  Consensus statement on the need for innovation, transition and implementation of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing for regulatory purposes.

Authors:  Ellen Fritsche; Philippe Grandjean; Kevin M Crofton; Michael Aschner; Alan Goldberg; Tuula Heinonen; Ellen V S Hessel; Helena T Hogberg; Susanne Hougaard Bennekou; Pamela J Lein; Marcel Leist; William R Mundy; Martin Paparella; Aldert H Piersma; Magdalini Sachana; Gabriele Schmuck; Roland Solecki; Andrea Terron; Florianne Monnet-Tschudi; Martin F Wilks; Hilda Witters; Marie-Gabrielle Zurich; Anna Bal-Price
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2018-02-12       Impact factor: 4.219

Review 6.  Praegnatio Perturbatio-Impact of Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals.

Authors:  Vasantha Padmanabhan; Wenhui Song; Muraly Puttabyatappa
Journal:  Endocr Rev       Date:  2021-05-25       Impact factor: 19.871

7.  Scientific Challenges in the Risk Assessment of Food Contact Materials.

Authors:  Jane Muncke; Thomas Backhaus; Birgit Geueke; Maricel V Maffini; Olwenn Viviane Martin; John Peterson Myers; Ana M Soto; Leonardo Trasande; Xenia Trier; Martin Scheringer
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2017-09-11       Impact factor: 9.031

Review 8.  EDCs Mixtures: A Stealthy Hazard for Human Health?

Authors:  Edna Ribeiro; Carina Ladeira; Susana Viegas
Journal:  Toxics       Date:  2017-02-07

9.  Strategies to improve the regulatory assessment of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) using in vitro methods.

Authors:  Anna Bal-Price; Francesca Pistollato; Magdalini Sachana; Stephanie K Bopp; Sharon Munn; Andrew Worth
Journal:  Toxicol Appl Pharmacol       Date:  2018-02-22       Impact factor: 4.219

10.  Assessment of developmental neurotoxicity induced by chemical mixtures using an adverse outcome pathway concept.

Authors:  Francesca Pistollato; Emilio Mendoza de Gyves; Donatella Carpi; Stephanie K Bopp; Carolina Nunes; Andrew Worth; Anna Bal-Price
Journal:  Environ Health       Date:  2020-02-24       Impact factor: 5.984

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.