IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v34y2014i10p1785-1794.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

EPA Underestimates, Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates, and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility

Author

Listed:
  • Adam M. Finkel

Abstract

If exposed to an identical concentration of a carcinogen, every human being would face a different level of risk, determined by his or her genetic, environmental, medical, and other uniquely individual characteristics. Various lines of evidence indicate that this susceptibility variable is distributed rather broadly in the human population, with perhaps a factor of 25‐ to 50‐fold between the center of this distribution and either of its tails, but cancer risk assessment at the EPA and elsewhere has always treated every (adult) human as identically susceptible. The National Academy of Sciences “Silver Book” concluded that EPA and the other agencies should fundamentally correct their mis‐computation of carcinogenic risk in two ways: (1) adjust individual risk estimates upward to provide information about the upper tail; and (2) adjust population risk estimates upward (by about sevenfold) to correct an underestimation due to a mathematical property of the interindividual distribution of human susceptibility, in which the susceptibility averaged over the entire (right‐skewed) population exceeds the median value for the typical human. In this issue of Risk Analysis, Kenneth Bogen disputes the second adjustment and endorses the first, though he also relegates the problem of underestimated individual risks to the realm of “equity concerns” that he says should have little if any bearing on risk management policy. In this article, I show why the basis for the population risk adjustment that the NAS recommended is correct—that current population cancer risk estimates, whether they are derived from animal bioassays or from human epidemiologic studies, likely provide estimates of the median with respect to human variation, which in turn must be an underestimate of the mean. If cancer risk estimates have larger “conservative” biases embedded in them, a premise I have disputed in many previous writings, such a defect would not excuse ignoring this additional bias in the direction of underestimation. I also demonstrate that sensible, legally appropriate, and ethical risk policy must not only inform the public when the tail of the individual risk distribution extends into the “high‐risk” range, but must alter benefit‐cost balancing to account for the need to try to reduce these tail risks preferentially.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam M. Finkel, 2014. "EPA Underestimates, Oversimplifies, Miscommunicates, and Mismanages Cancer Risks by Ignoring Human Susceptibility," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1785-1794, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:34:y:2014:i:10:p:1785-1794
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12288
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12288
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12288?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 Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2007. "Statistical vs. identified lives in benefit-cost analysis," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 45-66, August.
    2. Wolfgang F. Heidenreich, 2005. "Heterogeneity of Cancer Risk Due to Stochastic Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1589-1594, December.
    3. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Response to Comments on Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 559-561, December.
    4. Bruce C. Allen & Kenny S. Crump & Annette M. Shipp, 1988. "Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency of Chemicals in Animals and Humans," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 531-544, December.
    5. Frédéric Yves Bois & Gail Krowech & Lauren Zeise, 1995. "Modeling Human Interindividual Variability in Metabolism and Risk: The Example of 4‐Aminobiphenyl," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(2), pages 205-213, April.
    6. W. Kip Viscusi, 2012. "What'S To Know? Puzzles In The Literature On The Value Of Statistical Life," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 763-768, December.
    7. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    8. Ellen Silbergeld, 1988. "Epidemiology Versus Risk Assessment: Resolving Some Old Controversies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 555-557, December.
    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. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    2. Shamoun, Dima & Williams, Richard & Broughel, James & Calabrese, Edward, 2016. "Regulation under Uncertainty: Use of the Linear No-Threshold Model in Chemical and Radiation Exposure," Working Papers 04174, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.

    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. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Does EPA Underestimate Cancer Risks by Ignoring Susceptibility Differences?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1780-1784, October.
    2. Kenneth T. Bogen, 2014. "Unveiling Variability and Uncertainty for Better Science and Decisions on Cancer Risks from Environmental Chemicals," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(10), pages 1795-1806, October.
    3. Curtis C. Travis & Sheri T. Hester, 1990. "Background Exposure to Chemicals: What Is the Risk?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 463-466, December.
    4. Michael J. Goddard & Daniel Krewski, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation of Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 315-317, June.
    5. Karen Watanabe & Frédéric Y. Bois & Lauren Zeise, 1992. "Interspecies Extrapolation: A Reexamination of Acute Toxicity Data," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 301-310, June.
    6. Daniel Krewski, 1990. "Measuring Carcinogenic Potency," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 615-617, December.
    7. Adam M. Finkel, 1994. "Risk Assessment Research: Only the Beginning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(6), pages 907-911, December.
    8. Robert J. Scheuplein & John C. Bowers, 1995. "Dioxin–An Analysis of the Major Human Studies: Comparison with Animal‐Based Cancer Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 319-333, June.
    9. Christopher J. Portier, 1988. "Species Correlation of Chemical Carcinogens," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(4), pages 551-553, December.
    10. Seymour J. Garte, 1990. "Communication of Relative Carcinogenic Risks: A Quantitative Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(4), pages 467-468, December.
    11. Carl F. Cranor & Adam M. Finkel, 2018. "Toward the usable recognition of individual benefits and costs in regulatory analysis and governance," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 131-149, March.
    12. Walter W. Piegorsch & Gregory J. Carr & Christopher J. Portier & David G. Hoel, 1992. "Concordance of Carcinogenic Response between Rodent Species: Potency Dependence and Potential Underestimation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 115-121, March.
    13. Alison C. Taylor & John S. Evans & Thomas E. McKone, 1993. "The Value of Animal Test Information in Environmental Control Decisions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(4), pages 403-412, August.
    14. Kenneth T. Bogen, 1995. "Methods to Approximate Joint Uncertainty and Variability in Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(3), pages 411-419, June.
    15. James K. Hammitt, 2020. "Valuing mortality risk in the time of COVID-19," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 129-154, October.
    16. H. Spencer Banzhaf, 2014. "Retrospectives: The Cold-War Origins of the Value of Statistical Life," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 28(4), pages 213-226, Fall.
    17. Treich, Nicolas, 2010. "The value of a statistical life under ambiguity aversion," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 15-26, January.
    18. St-Amour, Pascal, 2024. "Valuing life over the life cycle," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    19. Nicolò Gatti & Beatrice Retali, 2021. "Fighting the spread of Covid-19 : was the Swiss lockdown worth it?," IdEP Economic Papers 2101, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    20. James K. Hammitt & Peter Morfeld & Jouni T. Tuomisto & Thomas C. Erren, 2020. "Premature Deaths, Statistical Lives, and Years of Life Lost: Identification, Quantification, and Valuation of Mortality Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 674-695, April.

    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:34:y:2014:i:10:p:1785-1794. 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.