Variability and Uncertainty Meet Risk Management and Risk Communication

In the past decade, the use of probabilistic risk analysis techniques to quantitatively address variability and uncertainty in risks increased in popularity as recommended by the 1994 National Research Council that wrote Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Under the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, for example, the U.S. EPA supported the development of tools that produce distributions of risk demonstrating the variability and/or uncertainty in the results. This paradigm shift away from the use of point estimates creates new challenges for risk managers, who now struggle with decisions about how to use distributions in decision making. The challenges for risk communication, however, have only been minimally explored. This presentation uses the case studies of variability in the risks of dying on the ground from a crashing airplane and from the deployment of motor vehicle airbags to demonstrate how better characterization of variability and uncertainty in the risk assessment lead to better risk communication. Analogies to food safety and environmental risks are also discussed. This presentation demonstrates that probabilistic risk assessment has an impact on both risk management and risk communication, and highlights remaining research issues associated with using improved sensitivity and uncertainty analyses in risk assessment.     

VCCEP Pilot: Progress on Evaluating Children''s Risks and Data Needs

The Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program (VCCEP) is designed to provide information to the public on children's potential health risks associated with chemical exposures. The key question of the VCCEP is whether the potential hazards, exposures, and risks to children have been adequately characterized, and, if not, what additional data are necessary. To answer this question, manufacturers or importers of 23 chemicals were asked by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to sponsor their chemicals in the first tier of a pilot program. These chemicals were selected for evaluation because they have been found as contaminants in human tissue or fluids (adipose tissue, blood, breath, breast milk, or urine); food and water children may eat and drink; or air children may breathe (including residential or school air). Under the VCCEP framework, sponsoring companies agree to prepare Tier 1 hazard, exposure, and risk assessments on the individual chemicals, and identify the need for additional data. These assessment documents are submitted to the U.S. EPA and subsequently undergo review by experts in an independent peer consultation meeting that is open to the public. Following this peer consultation process, the U.S. EPA reviews each submission and makes a data-needs determination, which may include requesting further data collection or generation by the sponsor. Sponsoring companies then decide whether to volunteer for the next tier and collect or generate the requested data. The purpose of this article is to describe the VCCEP process and to review and present the key findings from the first set of chemicals that have been fully or partially evaluated under the pilot program (vinylidene chloride, decabromodiphenyl ether, pentabromodiphenyl ether, octabromodiphenyl ether, acetone, methyl ethyl ketone, decane, undecane, and dodecane). Specifically, we provide a brief summary of the sponsors' submissions, the peer consultation panels' discussions, and the U.S. EPA's data-needs decisions. Although we do not attempt to conduct independent analyses of the underlying data, we do identify a number of common themes that have emerged during implementation of the pilot program and discuss several key issues that could become important in the future. The information presented here should be useful for various parties interested in the progress of the VCCEP and the results of the initial (Tier 1) children's assessments.     

Advancing Risk‐Informed Decision Making in Managing Defense Nuclear Waste in the United States: Opportunities and Challenges for Risk Analysis

An omnibus spending bill in 2014 directed the Department of Energy to analyze how effectively Department of Energy (DOE) identifies, programs, and executes its plans to address public health and safety risks that remain as part of DOE's remaining environmental cleanup liabilities. A committee identified two dozen issues and associated recommendations for the DOE, other federal agencies, and the U.S. Congress to consider, as well as other stakeholders such as states and tribal nations. In regard to risk assessment, the committee described a risk review process that uses available data, expert experience, identifies major data gaps, permits input from key stakeholders, and creates an ordered set of risks based on what is known. Probabilistic risk assessments could be a follow‐up from these risk reviews. In regard to risk management, the states, in particular, have become major drivers of how resources are driven. States use different laws, different priorities, and challenge DOE's policies in different ways. Land use decisions vary, technology choices are different, and other notable variations are apparent. The cost differences associated with these differences are marked. The net result is that resources do not necessarily go to the most prominent human health and safety risks, as seen from the national level.     

A Comparison of Organic and Conventional Fresh Produce Buyers in the Boston Area

Food safety concerns and the demand for organically grown produce have increased significantly in the United States over the last decade. Key differences in lifestyle characteristics, food safety attitudes and beliefs, perceived food safety risks, and valuation of health risk reductions between organic and conventional food buyers remain largely unknown, however. To better characterize how buyers of organic fresh produce differ from their conventional counterparts, over 700 food shoppers were sampled from ten major retail stores in the Boston area. Survey results show that self-reported organic buyers are more likely than conventional buyers to engage in a variety of health-promoting and environmentally friendly behaviors. Organic buyers are less trusting of federal food safety agencies than are conventional buyers, and perceive greater benefits associated with organically grown produce than do their conventional counterparts. Further, organic buyers have significantly higher risk perceptions than do conventional buyers for food safety hazards associated with conventionally grown produce. Compared to conventional buyers, organic produce buyers also perceive significant risk reductions associated with switching to organically grown produce and are willing to pay a higher price to reduce perceived food safety risks. Few sociodemographic differences between buyer types were observed, possibly due to how organic and conventional food stores were matched. Survey findings highlight the need for greater public education about a range of food safety issues and farming practices to ensure that consumers are making informed decisions in the marketplace.     

A Look at State‐Level Risk Assessment in the United States: Making Decisions in the Absence of Federal Risk Values

State environmental agencies in the United States are charged with making risk management decisions that protect public health and the environment while managing limited technical, financial, and human resources. Meanwhile, the federal risk assessment community that provides risk assessment guidance to state agencies is challenged by the rapid growth of the global chemical inventory. When chemical toxicity profiles are unavailable on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System or other federal resources, each state agency must act independently to identify and select appropriate chemical risk values for application in human health risk assessment. This practice can lead to broad interstate variation in the toxicity values selected for any one chemical. Within this context, this article describes the decision‐making process and resources used by the federal government and individual U.S. states. The risk management of trichloroethylene (TCE) in the United States is presented as a case study to demonstrate the need for a collaborative approach among U.S. states toward identification and selection of chemical risk values while awaiting federal risk values to be set. The regulatory experience with TCE is contrasted with collaborative risk science models, such as the European Union's efforts in risk assessment harmonization. Finally, we introduce State Environmental Agency Risk Collaboration for Harmonization, a free online interactive tool designed to help to create a collaborative network among state agencies to provide a vehicle for efficiently sharing information and resources, and for the advancement of harmonization in risk values used among U.S. states when federal guidance is unavailable.     

Perceived Risks of Conventional and Organic Produce: Pesticides, Pathogens, and Natural Toxins

Public risk perceptions and demand for safer food are important factors shaping agricultural production practices in the United States. Despite documented food safety concerns, little attempt has been made to elicit consumers' subjective risk judgments for a range of food safety hazards or to identify factors most predictive of perceived food safety risks. In this study, over 700 conventional and organic fresh produce buyers in the Boston area were surveyed for their perceived food safety risks. Survey results showed that consumers perceived relatively high risks associated with the consumption and production of conventionally grown produce compared with other public health hazards. For example, conventional and organic food buyers estimated the median annual fatality rate due to pesticide residues on conventionally grown food to be about 50 per million and 200 per million, respectively, which is similar in magnitude to the annual mortality risk from motor vehicle accidents in the United States. Over 90% of survey respondents also perceived a reduction in pesticide residue risk associated with substituting organically grown produce for conventionally grown produce, and nearly 50% perceived a risk reduction due to natural toxins and microbial pathogens. Multiple regression analyses indicate that only a few factors are consistently predictive of higher risk perceptions, including feelings of distrust toward regulatory agencies and the safety of the food supply. A variety of factors were found to be significant predictors of specific categories of food hazards, suggesting that consumers may view food safety risks as dissimilar from one another. Based on study findings, it is recommended that future agricultural policies and risk communication efforts utilize a comparative risk approach that targets a range of food safety hazards.     

Expert Views on Biological Threat Characterization for the U.S. Government: A Delphi Study

Biological threat characterization (BTC) involves laboratory research conducted for the purpose of biological defense. BTC research is important for improving biological risk assessment and informing resource prioritization. However, there are also risks involved in BTC work, including potential for escape from the laboratory or the misuse of research results. Using a modified Delphi study to gather opinions from U.S. experts in biosecurity and biodefense, this analysis explores what principles and safeguards can maximize the benefits of BTC research and ensure that it is conducted safely and securely. Delphi participants were asked to give their opinions about the need for BTC research by the U.S. government (USG); risks of conducting this research; rules or guidelines that should be in place to ensure that the work is safe and accurate; components of an effective review and prioritization process; rules for when characterization of a pathogen can be discontinued; and recommendations about who in the USG should be responsible for BTC prioritization decisions. The findings from this research reinforce the need for BTC research at the federal level as well as a need for continued review and oversight of this research to maximize its effectiveness and reduce the risks involved. It also demonstrates the need for further discussion of what would constitute a “red line” for biothreat characterization research—research that should not be performed for safety, ethical, or practical reasons—and guidelines for when there is sufficient research in a given topic area so that the research can be considered completed.     

Summary of the Workshop on Issues in Risk Assessment: Quantitative Methods for Developmental Toxicology

This report summarizes the proceedings of a conference on quantitative methods for assessing the risks of developmental toxicants. The conference was planned by a subcommittee of the National Research Council's Committee on Risk Assessment Methodology ⁴ in conjunction with staff from several federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission, and Health and Welfare Canada. Issues discussed at the workshop included computerized techniques for hazard identification, use of human and animal data for defining risks in a clinical setting, relationships between end points in developmental toxicity testing, reference dose calculations for developmental toxicology, analysis of quantitative dose-response data, mechanisms of developmental toxicity, physiologically based pharmacokinetic models, and structure-activity relationships. Although a formal consensus was not sought, many participants favored the evolution of quantitative techniques for developmental toxicology risk assessment, including the replacement of lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) and no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) with the benchmark dose methodology.     

Assessments of Direct Human Exposure—The Approach of EU Risk Assessments Compared to Scenario-Based Risk Assessment

The awareness of potential risks emerging from the use of chemicals in all parts of daily life has increased the need for risk assessments that are able to cover a high number of exposure situations and thereby ensure the safety of workers and consumers. In the European Union (EU), the practice of risk assessments for chemicals is laid down in a Technical Guidance Document; it is designed to consider environmental and human occupational and residential exposure. Almost 70 EU risk assessment reports (RARs) have been finalized for high-production-volume chemicals during the last decade. In the present study, we analyze the assessment of occupational and consumer exposure to trichloroethylene and phthalates presented in six EU RARs. Exposure scenarios in these six RARs were compared to scenarios used in applications of the scenario-based risk assessment approach to the same set of chemicals. We find that scenarios used in the selected EU RARs to represent typical exposure situations in occupational or private use of chemicals and products do not necessarily represent worst-case conditions. This can be due to the use of outdated information on technical equipment and conditions in workplaces or omission of pathways that can cause consumer exposure. Considering the need for exposure and risk assessments under the new chemicals legislation of the EU, we suggest that a transparent process of collecting data on exposure situations and of generating representative exposure scenarios is implemented to improve the accuracy of risk assessments. Also, the data sets used to assess human exposure should be harmonized, summarized in a transparent fashion, and made accessible for all risk assessors and the public.     

Managing Disruption Risks in Supply Chains

There are two broad categories of risk affecting supply chain design and management: (1) risks arising from the problems of coordinating supply and demand, and (2) risks arising from disruptions to normal activities. This paper is concerned with the second category of risks, which may arise from natural disasters, from strikes and economic disruptions, and from acts of purposeful agents, including terrorists. The paper provides a conceptual framework that reflects the joint activities of risk assessment and risk mitigation that are fundamental to disruption risk management in supply chains. We then consider empirical results from a rich data set covering the period 1995–2000 on accidents in the U. S. Chemical Industry. Based on these results and other literature, we discuss the implications for the design of management systems intended to cope with supply chain disruption risks.     

Risk Assessment for Carcinogens Under California''s Proposition 65

Risk assessments for carcinogens are being developed through an accelerated process in California as a part of the state's implementation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Estimates of carcinogenic potency made by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) are generally similar to estimates made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The largest differences are due to EPA's use of the maximum likelihood estimate instead of CDHS' use of the upper 95% confidence bounds on potencies derived from human data and to procedures used to correct for studies of short duration or with early mortality. Numerical limits derived from these potency estimates constitute "no significant risk" levels, which govern exemption from Proposition 65's discharge prohibition and warning requirements. Under Proposition 65 regulations, lifetime cancer risks less than 10(-5) are not significant and cumulative intake is not considered. Following these regulations, numerical limits for a number of Proposition 65 carcinogens that are applicable to the control of toxic discharges are less stringent than limits under existing federal water pollution control laws. Thus, existing federal limits will become the Proposition 65 levels for discharge. Chemicals currently not covered by federal and state controls will eventually be subject to discharge limitations under Proposition 65. "No significant risk" levels (expressed in terms of daily intake of carcinogens) also trigger warning requirements under Proposition 65 that are more extensive than existing state or federal requirements. A variety of chemical exposures from multiple sources are identified that exceed Proposition 65's "no significant risk" levels.     

Introduction to Special Section on Sensitivity Analysis and Summary of NCSU/USDA Workshop on Sensitivity Analysis

This guest editorial is a summary of the NCSU/USDA Workshop on Sensitivity Analysis held June 11–12, 2001 at North Carolina State University and sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Risk Assessment and Cost Benefit Analysis. The objective of the workshop was to learn across disciplines in identifying, evaluating, and recommending sensitivity analysis methods and practices for application to food‐safety process risk models. The workshop included presentations regarding the Hazard Assessment and Critical Control Points (HACCP) framework used in food‐safety risk assessment, a survey of sensitivity analysis methods, invited white papers on sensitivity analysis, and invited case studies regarding risk assessment of microbial pathogens in food. Based on the sharing of interdisciplinary information represented by the presentations, the workshop participants, divided into breakout sessions, responded to three trigger questions: What are the key criteria for sensitivity analysis methods applied to food‐safety risk assessment? What sensitivity analysis methods are most promising for application to food safety and risk assessment? and What are the key needs for implementation and demonstration of such methods? The workshop produced agreement regarding key criteria for sensitivity analysis methods and the need to use two or more methods to try to obtain robust insights. Recommendations were made regarding a guideline document to assist practitioners in selecting, applying, interpreting, and reporting the results of sensitivity analysis.     

Performance-Based Budgeting: The U.S. Experience

In the United States, it is premature to claim that performance-based budgeting (PBB) will replace line-item budgeting in near future, particularly at the federal and state level. This article attempts to (1) provide a brief historical context of PBB in the U.S.; (2) identify some challenges associated with the theoretical underpinnings and operational principles of PBB; (3) document current practice and research pertaining to designing and implementation; and (4) discuss the prospect of PBB. The locus of PBB in the 21St century will be local, the focus will be comparative, and the impetus will come mainly from the media.     

Technology transfer: Research to commercial product

One of the most admired aspects of U.S. technology has been the ability to assimilate and commercialize new science and technology. In light of the rising international competition, there has been new emphasis placed on the commercialization of U.S. science and technology developed in the federal laboratories and universities and indpendent research laboratories. While federal research and development remains the focus of the majority of these laboratories, an additional goal is to facilitate the exploitation of the discoveries, patents, and copyrights developed at the laboratories.The transfer of technology to industrial partners and users is a complex task for a federal laboratory. Since the interaction with industry, as well as market knowledge and assessment of the needs of business users are beyond the charter of a federal research laboratory or university, new organizational mechanisms are required in order to obtain full commercial value from the laboratories' efforts. A study was instituted to examine selected organizational and policy arrangements for achieving the optimum commercial value from the science and technology research at federal or independent research and development laboratories or university laboratories sponsored and funded by the U.S. Government.     

Peak Exposures in Epidemiologic Studies and Cancer Risks: Considerations for Regulatory Risk Assessment

We review approaches for characterizing “peak” exposures in epidemiologic studies and methods for incorporating peak exposure metrics in dose–response assessments that contribute to risk assessment. The focus was on potential etiologic relations between environmental chemical exposures and cancer risks. We searched the epidemiologic literature on environmental chemicals classified as carcinogens in which cancer risks were described in relation to “peak” exposures. These articles were evaluated to identify some of the challenges associated with defining and describing cancer risks in relation to peak exposures. We found that definitions of peak exposure varied considerably across studies. Of nine chemical agents included in our review of peak exposure, six had epidemiologic data used by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in dose–response assessments to derive inhalation unit risk values. These were benzene, formaldehyde, styrene, trichloroethylene, acrylonitrile, and ethylene oxide. All derived unit risks relied on cumulative exposure for dose–response estimation and none, to our knowledge, considered peak exposure metrics. This is not surprising, given the historical linear no‐threshold default model (generally based on cumulative exposure) used in regulatory risk assessments. With newly proposed US EPA rule language, fuller consideration of alternative exposure and dose–response metrics will be supported. “Peak” exposure has not been consistently defined and rarely has been evaluated in epidemiologic studies of cancer risks. We recommend developing uniform definitions of “peak” exposure to facilitate fuller evaluation of dose response for environmental chemicals and cancer risks, especially where mechanistic understanding indicates that the dose response is unlikely linear and that short‐term high‐intensity exposures increase risk.     

Genetically Modified Organisms and the U.S. Retail Food Labeling Controversy: Consumer Perceptions,Regulation, and Public Policy

In this article, we address the public issue of mandatory Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) retail food labeling in the U.S., first by reviewing the policy arguments both in support and against labeling food containing GMOs; second, by describing the existing U.S. federal regulatory system pertaining to GMO labeling, and why it does not presently require labeling of food containing GMOs; third, by reviewing and interpreting the results of studies of American consumer attitudes toward mandatory GMO retail food labeling; fourth, by evaluating, through the utilization of issue life cycle analysis in the nonmarket environment, where the issue of GMO retail food labeling stands in the national public policy process; fifth, summarizing the state of scientific evidence addressing the safety of GMO foods and the existing regulatory and public policy environment for this issue; and sixth, offering legislative and litigation strategies for the mainstream food nonmarket strategy framework to formally assess the GMO industry to protect their interests and those of American consumers not concerned with GMO food ingredients, while offering a voluntary labeling strategy for firms responding to and recognizing the “rights” of American consumers who “choose” to purchase non‐GMO food products.     

Limitations on the Usefulness of Risk Assessment

Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is now regarded as an essential component in the analysis of risks arising from installations classified as major hazards. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the value of the results in decision-making in practical situations. The use made of QRA in three contrasting cases which came to extensive public attention in the U.K. is examined. The first concerned an extension of domestic development near a chemical factory; the second an extension to a large petrochemical complex; and the third to a proposal to build a pressurized water reactor. The two public inquiries concerned with the chemical industry accepted standards of individual risk which were comparable to the risks from everyday accidents; the evidence of societal risk that could arise from major accidents at the petrochemical complex was compared with that of a local natural hazard — flooding. Higher standards of individual safety were set in the inquiry into the PWR proposal, and the definition of societal risk was debated at length. The QRA results were analyzed to show that risks arising from accidents were lower than those from normal operations, but they were used explicitly as a check on the overall safety of the design and of the operational and licensing organization. Such qualitative examination will always be required in addition to QRA. All these inquiries were faced with considerable technical argument. There is a need for the full details of risk calculations to be clear. The usefulness of QRA as an input to decision-making would be much enhanced if the technical points at issue could be clarified outside a formal public inquiry. In addition, there are some technical questions which apply to many installations. There should be better mechanisms of technical debate to achieve a measure of agreement on the optimum methods of calculation in these cases, and some possibilities are explored.     

Communicating Food Risks in an Era of Growing Public Distrust: Three Case Studies

The communication and regulation of risk has changed significantly over the past 30 years in Europe and to a noticeable but lesser extent in the United States. In Europe, this is partly due to a series of regulatory mishaps, ranging from mad cow disease in the United Kingdom to contamination of the blood supply in France. In the United States, general public confidence in the American government has been gradually declining for more than three decades, driven by a mix of cultural and political conflicts like negative political advertising, a corrosive news media, and cuts in regulatory budgets. While the former approach is based on an objective assessment of the risk, the latter is driven more by the perception of the risk, consumer sentiment, political will, and sectoral advocacy. In this article, the author examines three U.S.‐based food case studies (acrylamide, bisphenol A, and artificial food colorings) where regulations at the local and state levels are increasingly being based on perceived risk advocacy rather than on the most effective response to the risk, be it to food safety or public health, as defined by regulatory interpretation of existing data. In the final section, the author puts forward a series of recommendations for how U.S.‐based regulators can best handle those situations where the perceived risk is markedly different from the fact‐based risk, such as strengthening the communication departments of food regulatory agencies, training officials in risk communication, and working more proactively with neutral third‐party experts.     

Chemical and Radiation Environmental Risk Management: Differences, Commonalities, and Challenges

Driven by differing statutory mandates and programmatic separation of regulatory responsibilities between federal, state, and tribal agencies, distinct chemical and radiation risk management strategies have evolved. In the field this separation poses real challenges since many of the major environmental risk management decisions we face today require the evaluation of both types of risks. Over the last decade, federal, state, and tribal agencies have continued to discuss their different approaches and explore areas where their activities could be harmonized. The current framework for managing public exposures to chemical carcinogens has been referred to as a "bottom up approach." Risk between 10(-4) and 10(-6) is established as an upper bound goal. In contrast, a "top down" approach that sets an upper bound dose limit and couples with site specific As Low As Reasonably Achievable Principle (ALARA), is in place to manage individual exposure to radiation. While radiation risk are typically managed on a cumulative basis, exposure to chemicals is generally managed on a chemical-by-chemical, medium-by-medium basis. There are also differences in the nature and size of sites where chemical and radiation contamination is found. Such differences result in divergent management concerns. In spite of these differences, there are several common and practical concerns among radiation and chemical risk managers. They include 1) the issue of cost for site redevelopment and long-term stewardship, 2) public acceptance and involvement, and 3) the need for flexible risk management framework to address the first two issues. This article attempts to synthesize key differences, opportunities for harmonization, and challenges ahead.