SAGE Journals Online
Advertisement
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Advertisement

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Human & Experimental Toxicology
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow A correction has been published
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 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
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hoffmann, G.
Right arrow Articles by Stempsey, W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hoffmann, G.
Right arrow Articles by Stempsey, W.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

research-article

The hormesis concept and risk assessment: are there unique ethical and policy considerations?

GR Hoffmann

Department of Biology, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

WE Stempsey

Department of Philosophy, College of the Holy Cross, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA

The hormesis concept holds that low doses of toxic substances and radiation elicit modest biological responses opposite to those caused by higher doses of the same agents. This concept stands in contrast to the prevailing views that a threshold model predicts most responses to toxicants at low doses and that linear extrapolation best predicts mutagenic and carcinogenic responses. Beyond the scientific considerations, there has been concern that inclusion of the hormesis model in risk assessment would raise complex ethical questions, pose serious challenges for policy makers, and threaten public safety. This article briefly reviews the growing evidence for hormesis and offers a perspective on the related ethical and societal issues. Complexities stem from the nature of biphasic curves, in which biological responses fall both above and below background levels. The monotonic responses of the threshold and linear models lend themselves to a single policy objective – avoiding harm associated with exposures. The biphasic responses of the hormesis model, however, suggest the possibility of accruing benefit as well as avoiding harm. The prospect of applying the hormesis model to public health policy is impeded by insufficient ability to identify the hormetic and toxic zones with precision. Moreover, heterogeneity among individuals in susceptibility to toxicants suggests that benefit and risk may be distributed unequally in the population. The potential shift in policy objectives associated with hormesis is considered relative to the difficulty of balancing the ethical principles of nonmaleficence and beneficence while maintaining a higher priority on the former.

Key Words: dose-response • high-risk groups • hormesis • public health • risk assessment • threshold • toxicologic risk

Human & Experimental Toxicology, Vol. 27, No. 8, 613-620 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0960327108098487


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




Advertisement