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 Beck, B D Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Beck, B D Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

An evaluation of the US Environmental Protection Agency definition of a risk assessment

Gradient Corporation, 20 University Road, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA bbeck{at}gradientcorp.com

A full presentation of relevant information, including both non–adverse and beneficial effects, of chemicals is important to developing sound and balanced risk assessments. Such considerations are not new. For example, the American Thoracic Society has developed criteria for defining adverse and non–adverse pulmonary effects. Failing to allow risk assessors to even consider non–adverse and beneficial effects will discourage the use of information from developing technologies, such as genomics, and from new understandings of dose–response relationships, as reflected in the hormetic model. Failing to provide such information to risk managers potentially provides a biased perspective on risk

Key Words: hormesis • adverse • risk assessment

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 25, No. 1, 3-5 (2006)
DOI: 10.1191/0960327106ht577oa


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