This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Mundt, K A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mundt, K A Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

An examination of the Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment principles and practices: a brief commentary on section 4.1.3 of the EPA March 2004 Staff Paper

ENVIRON Health Sciences, ENVIRON International Corporation, P.O. Box 2424, Amherst, MA 01004, USA kmundt{at}environcorp.com

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a Staff Paper that articulates current risk assessment practices. In section 4.1.3, EPA states,"...effects that appear to be adaptive, non–adverse, or beneficial may not be mentioned." This statement may be perceived as precluding risk assessments based on non–default risk models, including the hormetic–or biphasicdose–response model. This commentary examines several potential interpretations of this statement and the anticipated impact of ignoring hormesis, if present, in light of necessary conservatism for protecting human and environmental health, and the potential for employing alternative risk assessment approaches.

Key Words: risk assessment • hormesis • biphasic dose–response

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 25, No. 1, 19-21 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327106ht580oa


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?