Hormesis in precautionary regulatory culture: Models preferences and the advancement of science

Human and Experimental Toxicology

Volumn 26, Issue 11, 2007, Pages 855-873

  Hanekamp, Jaap C ^a   Bast, Aalt ^b  

^a CEO HAN   (Netherlands)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Chloramphemcol; Hormesis; Oxygen; Precautionary culture; Science

Indexed keywords

CHLORAMPHENICOL; OXYGEN;

AUTHOR; CONCENTRATION (PARAMETERS); EXPOSURE; HORMESIS; MODEL; ORGANISM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECIPIENT; REGULATORY MECHANISM; REVIEW; SCIENCE; TOXICOLOGY;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; ANIMALS; CULTURE; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; EUROPEAN UNION; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PUBLIC POLICY; RISK ASSESSMENT; XENOBIOTICS;

EID: 37449017077     PISSN: 09603271     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0960327107083414     Document Type: Review

References (118)

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, An examination of EPA risk assessment principles and practices. Staff Paper Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force, 2004, EPA/100/B-04/001 (added italics).
2. Pieterman R, Hanekamp JC. The cautious society? An essay on the rise of the precautionary culture, HAN, 2002.
3. Hanekamp JC, Vera-Navas G, Versiegen SW. The historical roots of precautionary thinking: the cultural ecological critique and 'The Limits to Growth'. J Risk Res 2004; 53(3): 295-310.
4. Stenmark M. How to relate science and religion. A multidimensional model. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.
5. Jovarsky D. The Lysenko affair. The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
6. Kuhn TS. The structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
7. Weber M. On the methodology of the social sciences. Free Press, 1949.
8. Lakatos I. Mathematics, science and epistemology: Philosophical papers. Volume 2. Worall J, Currie G. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 258; italics in the original.
9. See for initial work on the sociology of knowledge: Fleck, L. Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv.
10. Benno Schwabe & C. 1935. [This rather unknown book has been given attention by Tomas Kuhn, who himself became famous for his work on the philosophy of science. Fleck's work is translated: Fleck L. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. The University of Chicago Press, 1979.]
11. Ulrich B. Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere moderne. Suhrkamp, 1986.
12. See also: Giddens, A. The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, 1990.
13. Fukuyama F. Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Hamish Hamilton, 1995;
14. Elchardus M, Smits W. Anatomie en oorzaken van het wantrouwen. VUB Press, 2002. (Anatomy and causes of distrust.);
15. See also on the issue of risk: Flynn J, Slovic P, Kunreuther H. Risk, media and stigma, understanding public challenge to modern science and technology. Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2001;
16. See for an insightful article on knowledge and trust: Sjöberg L. Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal 2001; 21(1): 189-98.
17. Unger RM. Knowledge & politics. The Free Press, 1975;
18. Unger RM. Law in modern society: toward a criticism of social theory. The Free Press, 1976.
19. Douglas M, Wildavsky A. Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. Berkely University of California Press, 1982.
20. Dahrendorf R. Class and class conflict in industrial society, Stanford University Press, 1959.
21. Friedman LM. A history of American law. Touchstone, 1986.
22. Simon J. The state of humanity. Blackwell Publisher Limited, 1995.
23. Furedi F. Culture of fear. Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. Continuum, 2002.
24. Jacoby R. The end of Utopia. Politics and culture in an age of apathy. Basic Books, 1999.
25. Ellman LM, Sunstein CR. Hormesis, the precautionary principle, and legal regulation. Belle Newsletter 2004; 12(2): 2-12.
26. Cross FB. Paradoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Washington Lee Law Rev 1996; 53: 851-925;
27. Stone CD. Is there a precautionary principle? Environ Law Reporter, 2001; 10789-99;
28. Bergkamp L. Understanding the precautionary principle, Parts I and II. Environmen Liability, 2002; pp. 18-30 and pp. 67-82;
29. Wiener JB, Rogers MD. Comparing precaution in the United States and Europe. J Risk Res 2002; 5(4), 317-49;
30. Christoforou T. The regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union: the interplay of science, law and politics. Common Mkt Law Rev 2004; 41, 637-709;
31. Da Cruz Vilaça, JL. The precautionary principle in EC law. Euro Pub Law 2004; 10(2): 369-406.
32. See e.g., Goklany IM. The precautionary principle. A critical appraisal of environmental risk assessment. Cato Institute, 2001;
33. Morris J. (ed) Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000.
34. See e.g. Niet alle Risico's zijn Gelijk. Dutch Health Council, report 1995/06. (AH risks are not equal.) Risico, meer dan een getal. Handreiking voor een verdere ontwikkeling van de risicobenadering in het milieubeleid. Dutch Health Council, report 1996/03. (Risk, more than a number. Directive for a further development of a risk approach of environmental policies.)
35. Graham JD. Decision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 2001; 4(2): 127-41.
36. Wiener JB. Precaution in a multi-risk world. Duke Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 23, 2001.
37. Popper KR. The open society and its enemies. Volume I & II. Princeton University Press, 1971;
38. Popper KR. The poverty of historicism. (reprint), Routledge Classics, 2002.
39. Wildavsky A. Trial and error versus trial without error. In: rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Morris J. (ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann, 2000, p. 22-45;
40. Graham JD. Decision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle. J Risk Res 2001; 4(2): 127-41;
41. Marchant GE. The precautionary principle: an 'unprincipled' approach to biotechnology regulation. J Risk Res 2001; 4(2): 143-57.
42. Wildavsky A. But is it true? A citizen's guide to environmental health and safety issues, third edition, Harvard University Press, 1997.
43. Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Graham JD. Five-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness. Risk Anal 1995; 15(3): 369-89;
44. Keeney RL. Estimating fatalities induced by the economic costs of regulation. J Risk Uncertainty 1997; 14: 5-23;
45. Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M. Do life-saving regulations save lives? J Risk Uncertainty, 2002; 24(3): 231-49;
46. Kip Viscusi W, Aldy JE. The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertainty 2003; 27(1): 5-76;
47. Morrall III JF. Saving lives: A review of the record. J Risk Uncertainty 2003; 27(3): 221-37.
48. Feinstein JS. The relationship between socioeconomic status and health: A review of the literature. Milbank Q 1993; 71: 279-321;
49. Mackenbach JP. Ongezonde verschillen. Over sociale stratificatie en gezondheid in Nederland. (Unhealthy differences. Social stratification and health in the Netherlands.) Van Gorcum, 1994;
50. Wagstaff A, Van Doorslaer E. Income inequality and health: What does the literature tell us? Ann Rev Pub Health 2000; 21: 543-67.
51. nd series), the Law School, University of Chicago, 2002;
52. Rip A. Co-evolution of science, technology and society. An Expert Review for the Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung's Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (Science Policy Studies), as managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002.
53. Douma WTh. The precautionary principle. Its application in international, European and Dutch law. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, 2003.
54. See for the issue of precautionary choice in a cultural and historical perspective: note 2; See also: Turvey CG, Mojduszka EM. The precautionary principle and the law of unintended consequences. Food Policy 2005; 30: 145-61.
55. Power M. The risk management of everything. Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Demos, 2004.
56. Ames B, Gold LS. Paracelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction. Mutat Res 2000; 447: 3-13;
57. Bergkamp L, Hanekamp JC. The draft REACH regime: Costs and benefits of precautionary chemical regulation. Environ Liability 2003; 5: 167-80.
58. Rip A. Risicocontroverses en verwevenheid van wetenschap en politiek. In: Kennis en methode, 1992; 16/1: 63-80. (Risk controversies and the intertwining of science and politics.);
59. Jasanoff S. The songlines of risk. Environ Values 1999; 8(2): 135-52;
60. Pieterman R. Culture in the risk society. An essay on the rise of a precautionary culture. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 2001; 22(2): 145-68.
61. Gellner E. Postmodernism, reason and religion. Routledge, 1992;
62. Gellner E. Reason and culture. The historic role of rationality and rationalism. Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
63. Westra L. Post-normal science, the precautionary principle and the ethics of integrity. Found Sci 1997; 2: 237-62;
64. Funtowicz S, Ravetz J. Post-normal science. Environmental policy under conditions of complexity. See http://www.jvds.nl/pns/pns.htm (last visited on the 3rd of January, 2006).
65. Searle JR. The construction of social reality. The Free Press, 1999;
66. Hacking, I. The social construction of what? Harvard University Press, 1999.
67. Raffensperger C, Tickner J. Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island Press, 1999.
68. Page T. A generic view of toxic chemicals and similar risks. Ecol Law Q 1978; 7: 207-44.
69. Axelrod et al. for instance maintain on several grounds that hormesis is not the appropriate toxicological model to assess risks of chemicals exposure. However, their rejection of hormesis as a viable risk assessment tool is mainly based on the assumption that a public-health-protective approach is best served with the conservative classical toxicological approaches. Their disregard for the negative external costs as a result of the error of overregulation -for one - is typical for precautionary culture; Axelrod D, Burns K, Davis D, Von Larebeke N. 'Hormesis' - An inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal. Int J Environ Health 2004; 10: 335-9.
70. See e.g. on overregulation: Hanekamp JC, Frapporti G, Olieman K. Chloramphenicol, food safety and precautionary thinking in Europe. Environ Liability 2003; 6: 209-21.
71. Griffiths C. Economic implications of hormesis in policy making. Belle Newsletter 2004; 12(1): 12-14 (added italics).
72. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Toxicology rethinks its central belief. Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed. Nature, 2003; 421: 691-92.
73. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Hormesis: A generalizable and unifying hypothesis. Crit Rev Toxicol 2001; 31(4&5): 353-424.
74. Rozman KK, Doul J. Scientific foundations of hormesis. Part 2. Maturation, strengths, limitations, and possible applications in toxicology, pharmacology, and epidemiology. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33(3&4); 451-62.
75. Kaiser J. Sipping from a poisoned chalice. Science, 2003; 320: 376-78.
76. Calabrese EJ. The future of hormesis: Where do we go from here? Crit Rev Toxicol 2001; 31(4&5): 637-48.
77. Mokyr J. The gifts of Athena. Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press, 2002.
78. Parsons PA. Metabolic efficiency in response to environmental agents predicts hormesis and invalidates the linear no-threshold premise: Ionizing radiation as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33(3&4): 443-49;
79. Liu S-Z. On radiation hormesis expressed in the immune system. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33(3&4): 431-41;
80. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Inorganics and hormesis. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33(3&4): 215-304, 355-405, 407-424;
81. Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci 2003; 71: 246-50;
82. Chen WL, Luan YC, Shieh MC, Chen ST, Kung HT, Soong KL, Yeh YC, Chou TS, Mong SH, Wu JT, Sun CP, Deng WP, Wu MF, Shen ML. Is chronic radiation an effective prophylaxis against cancer? J Am Phys Surg 2004; 9(1): 6-10;
83. See also Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LA. Chemotherapeutics and hormesis. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33(3&4): 305-53.
84. Wickramashighe RH, Villee CA. Early role during chemical evolution for cytochrome P450 in oxygen detoxification. Nature, 1975; 256: 509-10.
85. Bast A. Is formation of reactive oxygen by cytochrome P-450 perilous and predictable? Trends Pharmacol Sci 1986; 7: 266-70.
86. Repine JE, Bast A, Lankhorst ILM. Oxidative stress in COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156: 341-58 (on behalf of the international oxidative stress study club).
87. Den Hartog GJM, Haenen GRMM, Boven E, Van der Vijgh WJF, Bast A. Lecithinized copper, zinc-superoxide dismutase as a protector against doxorubicin-induced cardiotoxicity in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2004; 194: 180-88.
88. Yim MB, Chock PB, Stadtman ER. Copper zinc superoxide dismutase catalyzes hydroxyl radical production from hydrogen peroxide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1990; 87: 5006-10.
89. Den Hartog GJM, Haenen GRMM, Vegt E, Van der Vijgh WJF, Bast A. Superoxide dismutase: The balance between prevention and induction of oxidative damage. Chem-Biol Inter 2003; 145: 33-9.
90. Van Acker SABE, Van den Berg D-J, Tromp MNJL, Griffioen DH, Van Bennekom WP, Van der Vijgh WJF, Bast A. Structural aspects of antioxidant activity of flavonoids. Free Rad Biol Med 1996; 20: 331-42.
91. Boots AW, Kubben N, Haenen GRMM, Bast A. Oxidized quercetin reacts with thiols rather than with ascorbate: implication for quercetin supplementation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun 2003; 308: 560-65.
92. Finkel T, Holbrook NJ. Oxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature 2000; 408: 239-47.
93. Stebbing ARD. A mechanism for hormesis - a problem in the wrong discipline. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33(3&4): 463-67.
94. REACH's justification creates a contradiction: government failure calls in the view of the European Commission for more government action.
95. Carson R. Silent spring. Penguin, 1962.
96. The European Chemical Bureau assessed the risk issues of phthalates rather differently (namely absent): European union risk assessment report, 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich and di- "isononyl" phthalate (DINP). 2003, Volume 35, EUR 20784EN.
97. Doll R, Peto R. The causes of cancer: Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Institute 1981; 66: 1192-308;
98. Ames BN, Gold LS, Shigenaga MK. Cancer prevention, rodent high-dose cancer tests and risk assessment. Risk Anal 1996; 16: 613-17;
99. Ames BN, Gold LS. Environmental pollution, pesticides, and the prevention of cancer: Misconceptions. FASEB J 1997; 11: 1041-52.
100. Marchant GE, Mossman KL. Arbitrary and capricous. The precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. The AEI Press, 2004.
101. Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure to set up maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin, Official J L224, 1990, 18 August, 1-8.
102. IPCS-INCHEM (Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organizations), webpage http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v23je02. htm (last visited on the 3rd of January 2006).
103. IPCS-INCHEM (Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organisations), webpage http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v33je03. htm (last visited on the 3rd of January 2006).
104. See on the risks of ophthalmic use of CAP: Laporte JR, Vidal X, Ballarin E, Ibanez L. Possible association between ocular chloramphenicol and aplastic anaemia - the absolute risk is very low. Brit J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46(2): 181-84.
105. Janssen PAH, Baars AJ, Pieters MN. Advies met betrekking tot chlooramfenicol in garnalen. RIVM/CSR, Bilthoven, 2001. (Recommendations on chloramphenicol in shrimp.)
106. Hanekamp JC, Wijnands RJ. Analytical technology, risk analysis and residues of veterinary substances: A précis and a proposal for coherent and logical clinical residue legislation. Joint FAO-WHO Technical Workshop on residues of veterinary drugs without ADI/MRL (Bangkok, Thailand 24-26 August 2004), 2004, working document;
107. See also Hanekamp JC, Kwakman J. Beyond zero tolerance: a new approach to food safety and residues of pharmacological active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin. Environ Liability 2004; 1: 33-9;
108. See also: Veldman M. Fantasy, the bomb and the greening of Britain. Romantic protest, 1945-1980. Cambridge University Press, 1994.
109. Calabrese EJ. Hormesis - basic, generalizable, central to toxicology and a method to improve the risk-assessment process. Intl J Occup Environ Health 2004; 10: 466-67.
110. Barnard RC. A new approach to risk assessment integrating scientific evaluation and economic assessment of costs and benefits. Regulat Toxicol Pharmacol 1996; 24: 121-5.
111. Cross FB. Legal implications of hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol 2001; 20(3): 156-8.
112. Wiener JB. Hormesis and the radical moderation of law. Hum Exp Toxicol 2001; 20(3): 162-4.
113. Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RL. Estimation of toxic hazard - a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol 1978; 16: 255-76.
114. Rulis AM. Threshold of regulation: Options for handling minimal risk situations. In: Food safety assessment. ACS Symposium Series 1992; 484: 132-9;
115. Carcinogens and anticarcinogens in the human diet. A comparison of naturally occurring and synthetic substances. Committee on Comparative Toxicity of Naturally Occurring Carcinogens, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press, 1996.
116. Kroes R, Renwick AG, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A, Schilter B, Schlatter J, Van Schothorst F, Vos JG, Würtzen G. Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 2004; 42: 65-83.
117. Kroes R, Galli C, Munro B, Schilter B, Tran L-A, Walker R, Würtzen G. Threshold of toxicological concern for chemical substances present in the diet: A practical tool for assessing the need for toxicity testing. Food Chem Toxicol 2000; 38: 255-312.
118. See e.g.: Calabrese EJ, Cook RR. Hormesis: how it could affect the risk assessment process. Hum Exp Toxicol 2005; 24: 265-70.