A 21st century roadmap for human health risk assessment

Critical Reviews in Toxicology

Volumn 44, Issue SUPPL.3, 2014, Pages 1-5

  Pastoor, Timothy P ^a   Bachman, Ammie N ^b   Bell, David R ^c   Cohen, Samuel M ^d   Dellarco, Michael ^e   Dewhurst, Ian C ^f   Doe, John E ^g   Doerrer, Nancy G ^h   Embry, Michelle R ^h   Hines, Ronald N ⁱ   Moretto, Angelo ^j   Phillips, Richard D ^b   Rowlands, J Craig ^k   Tanir, Jennifer Y ^h   Wolf, Douglas C ⁱ   Boobis, Alan R ^l  

^a SYNGENTA CROP PROTECTION   (United States)

^b EXXONMOBIL UPSTREAM RESEARCH COMPANY   (United States)

^c EUROPEAN CHEMICALS AGENCY   (Finland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^e EUNICE KENNEDY SHRIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^f UK Chemicals Regulation Direc   (United Kingdom)

^g Parker Doe Partnership LLP   (United Kingdom)

^h ILSI HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES INSTITUTE   (United States)

ⁱ U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^k DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY   (United States)

^l IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

more..

Author keywords

Exposure; Framework; Hazard; Problem formulation; Risk; Risk assessment; Risk policy; Tiered

Indexed keywords

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; GOVERNMENT; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; REVIEW; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNIVERSITY; ADVERSE EFFECTS; HEALTH STATUS; ORGANIZATION; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; PUBLIC HEALTH; SAFETY; TRENDS; UNITED KINGDOM; UNITED STATES;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; GREAT BRITAIN; HEALTH STATUS; HUMANS; NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (U.S.); PUBLIC HEALTH; RISK ASSESSMENT; SAFETY; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84905046314     PISSN: 10408444     EISSN: 15476898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/10408444.2014.931923     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Council of Canadian Academies. (2012). Integrating Emerging Technologies into Chemical Safety Assessment. Ottawa, Canada: Council of Canadian Academies.
2. Dourson M, Becker RA, Haber LT, Pottenger LH, Bredfeldt T, Fenner-Crisp P. (2013). Advancing human health risk assessment: Integrating recent advisory committee recommendations. Crit Rev Toxicol, 43, 467-92.
3. Embry MR, Bachman AN, Bell DR, Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco M, et al. (2014). Risk Assessment in the 21st Century: Roadmap and Matrix. Crit Rev Toxicol, 44, 6-16.
4. European Commission. 2012 SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identifi ed Health Risks), SCHER(Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks), SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety), Preliminary report on Addressing the New Challenges for Risk Assessment, 8 October 2012. Available at http://www.ec.europa.eu/health/scientific-committees/ emerging/ docs/scenihr-o-037.pdf [Accessed 10 January 2014].
5. Julien E, Boobis AR, Olin SS. (2009). The Key Events Dose-Response Framework: A cross-disciplinary mode-of-Action based approach to examining dose-response and thresholds Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr, 49, 682-9.
6. Kroes R, Galli C, Munro I, Schilter B, Tran L, Walker R, Wurtzen G. (2000). Threshold of toxicological concern for chemical substances present in the diet: A practical tool for assessing the need for toxicity testing. Food Chem Toxicol, 38, 255-312.
7. Kroes R, Renwick A, Cheeseman M, Kleiner J, Mangelsdorf I, Piersma A, et al. (2004). Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): Guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol, 42, 65-83.
8. Meek ME, Bolger M, Bus JS, Christopher J, Conolly RB, Lewis RJ, et al. (2013). A framework for fi t for purpose dose response-Assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 66, 234-40.
9. Munro IC, Ford RA, Kennepohl E, Sprenger JG. (1996). Correlation of structural class with no-observed-eff ect levels: A proposal for establishing a threshold of concern. Food Chem Toxicol, 34, 829-6.
10. National Research Council. 2012 Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
11. National Research Council. (2009). Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
12. National Research Council. (2008). Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
13. National Research Council. (2007). Toxicity Testing in the Twenty-fi rst Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
14. National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
15. Simon TW, Simons SS, Preston RJ, Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Doerrer NG, et al. (2014). The use of mode of action information in risk assessment: Quantitative key events/dose-response framework for modeling the dose-response for key events. Crit Rev Toxicol, 44, 17-43.
16. Thomas RS, Philbert MA, Auerbach SS, Wetmore BA, Devito MJ, Cote I, et al. (2013). Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing and risk assessment: Moving from 21st century vision to a data-driven framework. Toxicol Sci, 136, 4-18.