Human & Experimental Toxicology

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ricci, P.F.
Right arrow Articles by MacDonald, T.R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ricci, P.F.
Right arrow Articles by MacDonald, T.R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 26, No. 11, 877-889 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327107083413

Hormesis and precaution: the twain shall meet

P.F. Ricci

University of San Francisco, Environmental Science, San Francisco, CA, USA, apricci{at}earthlink.net

T.R. MacDonald

University of San Francisco, Environmental Science, San Francisco, CA, USA

Regulatory focus on quantifying risk of disease or death from exposure to hazardous substances via monotonic dose—response models has downplayed or even rejected potential benefits to human health from exposures to low (sub-threshold) doses, and thus represented by either U-shaped or J-shaped models. On the other hand, most environmental health policy hypothesizes, without firm evidence, that cancer risk is proportional to exposure at low doses of current ambient exposures. An acceptable exposure is determined by either setting a somewhat arbitrary `acceptable' level of risk, such as one in a million excess individual lifetime cancer risk or, in the case of several types of animal toxicological test results, applying multiplicative safety factors to a specific concentration, generally derived from a benchmark dose or NOAEL. This seemingly precautionary approach is questionable in light of much experimental evidence indicating protective effects of exposure at low doses — U-shaped or J-shaped models. We demonstrate that incorporating the possibility of hormesis into regulatory decision-making is precautionary, while use of default results in policy conflicts with precaution. Human & Experimental Toxicology (2007) 26, 877— 889

Key Words: hormesis • precaution • exposure • policy conflicts


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