IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v19y1999i2p231-247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fundamentals of Health Risk Assessment. Use, Derivation, Validity and Limitations of Safety Indices

Author

Listed:
  • Resha M. Putzrath
  • James D. Wilson

Abstract

We investigated the way results of human health risk assessments are used, and the theory used to describe those methods, sometimes called the “NAS paradigm.” Contrary to a key tenet of that theory, current methods have strictly limited utility. The characterizations now considered standard, Safety Indices such as “Acceptable Daily Intake,”“Reference Dose,” and so on, usefully inform only decisions that require a choice between two policy alternatives (e.g., approve a food additive or not), decided solely on the basis of a finding of safety. Riskis characterized as the quotient of one of these Safety Indices divided by an estimate of exposure: a quotient greater than one implies that the situation may be considered safe. Such decisions are very widespread, both in the U. S. federal government and elsewhere. No current method is universal; different policies lead to different practices, for example, in California's “Proposition 65,” where statutory provisions specify some practices. Further, an important kind of human health risk assessment is not recognized by this theory: this kind characterizes risk as likelihood of harm, given estimates of exposure consequent to various decision choices. Likelihood estimates are necessary whenever decision makers have many possible decision choices and must weigh more than two societal values, such as in EPA's implementation of “conventional air pollutants.” These estimates can not be derived using current methods; different methods are needed. Our analysis suggests changes needed in both the theory and practice of human health risk assessment, and how what is done is depicted.

Suggested Citation

  • Resha M. Putzrath & James D. Wilson, 1999. "Fundamentals of Health Risk Assessment. Use, Derivation, Validity and Limitations of Safety Indices," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(2), pages 231-247, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:231-247
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00402.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00402.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00402.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James D. Wilson, 1991. "A Usually Unrecognized Source of Bias in Cancer Risk Estimations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 11-12, March.
    2. Paul S. Price & Russell E. Keenan & Jeffrey C. Swartout & Carol A. Gillis & Heather Carlson‐Lynch & Michael L. Dourson, 1997. "An Approach for Modeling Noncancer Dose Responses with an Emphasis on Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 427-437, August.
    3. Wilson, James D., 1998. "Default and Inference Options: Use in Recurrent and Ordinary Risk Decisions," Discussion Papers 10712, Resources for the Future.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Panos G. Georgopoulos & Christopher J. Brinkerhoff & Sastry Isukapalli & Michael Dellarco & Philip J. Landrigan & Paul J. Lioy, 2014. "A Tiered Framework for Risk‐Relevant Characterization and Ranking of Chemical Exposures: Applications to the National Children's Study (NCS)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1299-1316, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dale Hattis & J Prerna Banati & Rob Goble & David E. Burmaster, 1999. "Human Interindividual Variability in Parameters Related to Health Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 711-726, August.
    2. Jeffrey C. Swartout & Paul S. Price & Michael L. Dourson & Heather L. Carlson‐Lynch & Russell E. Keenan, 1998. "A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD)," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 271-282, June.
    3. Wilson, James D., 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and Its Implications for Regulatory Policy," Discussion Papers 10470, Resources for the Future.
    4. Paul S. Price & Heli M. Hollnagel & Jack M. Zabik, 2009. "Characterizing the Noncancer Toxicity of Mixtures Using Concepts from the TTC and Quantitative Models of Uncertainty in Mixture Toxicity," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(11), pages 1534-1548, November.
    5. Wilson, James, 1996. "Thresholds for Carcinogens: A Review of the Relevant Science and It's Implications for Regulatory Policy," RFF Working Paper Series dp-96-21, Resources for the Future.
    6. Paul S. Price & Russ Keenan & Jeff Swartout & Michael Dourson, 1999. "Response to Comments on “An Approach for Modeling Noncancer Dose Responses with an Emphasis on Uncertainty” and “A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD)”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(1), pages 7-8, February.
    7. Scott M. Bartell & Elaine M. Faustman, 1998. "Comments on “An Approach for Modeling Noncancer Dose Responses with an Emphasis on Uncertainty” and “A Probabilistic Framework for the Reference Dose (Probabilistic RfD)”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(6), pages 663-664, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:19:y:1999:i:2:p:231-247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.