An Interagency Comparison of Screening‐Level Risk Assessment Approaches

Approaches to risk assessment have been shown to vary among regulatory agencies and across jurisdictional boundaries according to the different assumptions and justifications used. Approaches to screening‐level risk assessment from six international agencies were applied to an urban case study focusing on benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P) exposure and compared in order to provide insight into the differences between agency methods, assumptions, and justifications. Exposure estimates ranged four‐fold, with most of the dose stemming from exposure to animal products (8–73%) and plant products (24–88%). Total cancer risk across agencies varied by two orders of magnitude, with exposure to air and plant and animal products contributing most to total cancer risk, while the air contribution showed the greatest variability (1–99%). Variability in cancer risk of 100‐fold was attributed to choices of toxicological reference values (TRVs), either based on a combination of epidemiological and animal data, or on animal data. The contribution and importance of the urban exposure pathway for cancer risk varied according to the TRV and, ultimately, according to differences in risk assessment assumptions and guidance. While all agency risk assessment methods are predicated on science, the study results suggest that the largest impact on the differential assessment of risk by international agencies comes from policy and judgment, rather than science.