Weight of evidence evaluation and systematic review in EU chemical risk assessment: Foundation is laid but guidance is needed

Environment International

Volumn 92-93, Issue , 2016, Pages 590-596

  Ågerstrand, Marlene ^a   Beronius, Anna ^a  

^a STOCKHOLM UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Chemical legislation; Chemical risk assessment; Evidence integration; Systematic review; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS; LAWS AND LEGISLATION;

CHEMICAL RISK ASSESSMENT; EUROPEAN UNION; GUIDANCE DOCUMENT; REGULATORY AGENCIES; REGULATORY FRAMEWORKS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCES; WEIGHT OF EVIDENCES (WOE);

RISK ASSESSMENT;

CHEMICAL POLLUTANT; ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION; EUROPEAN UNION; GUIDELINE; PESTICIDE; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; RISK ASSESSMENT;

ARTICLE; ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL FACTOR; EUROPEAN UNION; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH HAZARD; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NONHUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS DEVELOPMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK REDUCTION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE; POLLUTANT; PROCEDURES; TOXICITY; TOXICOLOGY;

EUROPE;

ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURE; ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS; EUROPEAN UNION; RISK ASSESSMENT; TOXICOLOGY;

EID: 84960853970     PISSN: 01604120     EISSN: 18736750     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.10.008     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Ågerstrand, M., Rudén, C., Evaluation of the accuracy and consistency of the Swedish environmental classification and information system for pharmaceuticals. Sci. Total Environ. 408:11 (2010), 2327–2339, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.02.020.
2. Beronius, A., Hanberg, A., Zilliacus, J., Rudén, C., Bridging the gap between academic research and regulatory health risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 19:December (2014), 99–104, 10.1016/j.coph.2014.08.005.
3. Beronius, A., Rudén, C., Håkansson, H., Hanberg, A., Risk to all or none?: a comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of bisphenol A. Reprod. Toxicol. 29:2 (2010), 132–146, 10.1016/j.reprotox.2009.11.007.
4. EC, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/guidance_documents/docs/wrkdoc19_en.pdf, 2002.
5. EC, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/guidance_documents/docs/wrkdoc20_rev_en.pdf, 2004.
6. EC, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/guidance_documents/docs/7531_rev_10_en.pdf, 2006.
7. EC, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/guidance_documents/docs/report_birds_mammals_guidance_doc_sanco10997_2009_31_07_09.pdf, 2009.
8. Eden, J., Levit, L., Berg, A., Morton, S., Finding out What Works in Health Care. Standards for Systematic Reviews, 2011, Institute of Medicine of the National Academies.
9. European Chemicals Agency, REACH Guidance Documents. 2008 (Helsinki, Finland).
10. European Chemicals Agency, Practical Guide 2: How to Report Weight of Evidence. 2010 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13655/pg_report_weight_of_evidence_en.pdf.
11. European Chemicals Agency, REACH Guidance Documents. 2011 (Helsinki, Finland).
12. European Chemicals Agency, Factsheet: Interface between REACH and Cosmetics Regulations. 2014 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13628/reach_cosmetics_factsheet_en.pdf.
13. European Chemicals Agency, Guidance on the Application of the CLP Criteria. Version 4.1. 2015 https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/13562/clp_en.pdf.
14. European Chemicals Agency, Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation. Volume III Human Health - Part B Risk Assessment. Version 1.1, 2015 http://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/15623299/biocides_guidance_human_health_ra_iii_partb_en.pdf).
15. European Commission, Guidance Document on Aquatic Ecotoxicology. 2002, Plant Protection Products, Brussels, Belgium.
16. European Commission, Common Implementation Strategy for the Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC). Guidance Document No. 27. Technical Guidance for Deriving Environmental Quality Standards, 2011 ( https://circabc.europa.eu/sd/a/0cc3581b-5f65-4b6f-91c6-433a1e947838/TGD-EQS%20CIS-WFD%2027%20EC%202011.pdf).
17. European Food Safety Authority, Risk Assessment for Birds and Mammals. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1438.pdf, 2009.
18. European Food Safety Authority, Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support Decision Making. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/1637.pdf, 2010.
19. European Food Safety Authority, Submission of Scientific Peer-Reviewed Open Literature for the Approval of Pesticide Active Substances Under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. Parma, Italy. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/search/doc/2092.pdf, 2011.
20. European Food Safety Authority, Guidance on Tiered Risk Assessment for Plant Protection Products for Aquatic Organisms in Edge-of-Field Surface Waters. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3290.pdf, 2013.
21. EFSA, http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/guidance_documents/docs/efsa_guidance_document_dermal_absorption_18042012.pdf, 2012.
22. EMA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500004394.pdf, 2000.
23. EMA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500004393.pdf, 2005.
24. EMA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/10/WC500003978.pdf, 2006.
25. EMA, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/03/WC500185159.pdf, 2015.
26. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. www.cochrane-Handbook.org, 2009.
27. IARC, Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans. Preamble, 2006 ( http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Preamble/CurrentPreamble.pdf).
28. Klimisch, H.-J., Andreae, M., Tillmann, U., A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 25:1 (1997), 1–5, 10.1006/rtph.1996.1076.
29. Kortenkamp, A., Martin, O., Faust, M., Evans, R., McKinlay, R., Orton, F., Rosivatz, E., State of the Art Assessment of Endocrine Disrupters. Final Report. 2011 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf.
30. Koustas, E., Lam, J., Sutton, P., Johnson, P.I., Atchley, D.S., Sen, S., Robinson, K.A., Axelrad, D.A., Woodruff, T.J., The navigation guide—evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of nonhuman evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ. Health Perspect., 2014, 10.1289/ehp.1307177 (June).
31. Krimsky, S., The weight of scientific evidence in policy and law. Am. J. Public Health 95:Suppl. 1 (2005), S129–S136, 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044727.
32. Linkov, I., Loney, D., Susan, C., Kyle Satterstrom, F., Bridges, T., Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci. Total Environ. 407:19 (2009), 5199–5205, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.004.
33. National Research Council, U.S., Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18764/review-of-epas-integrated-risk-information-system-iris-process, 2014.
34. Rhomberg, L.R., Goodman, J.E., Bailey, L.A., Prueitt, R.L., Beck, N.B., Bevan, C., Honeycutt, M., et al. A survey of frameworks for best practices in weight-of-evidence analyses. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 43:9 (2013), 753–784, 10.3109/10408444.2013.832727.
35. Rooney, A.A., Boyles, A.L., Wolfe, M.S., Bucher, J.R., Thayer, K.A., Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ. Health Perspect., 2014, 10.1289/ehp.1307972 (April).
36. Rudén, C., From Data to Decision. A Case Study of Controversies in Cancer Risk Assessments. Doctoral Thesis, 2002, Karolonska Institutet, Sweden.
37. SCENIHR, Memorandum on the Use of the Scientific Literature for Human Health Risk Assessment Purposes — Weighing of Evidence and Expression of Uncertainty. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_s_001.pdf, 2012.
38. Schenk, L., Comparison of data used for setting occupational exposure limits. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 16:3 (2010), 249–262, 10.1179/oeh.2010.16.3.249.
39. Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, The SCCS's Notes of Guidance for the Testing of Cosmetic Substances and Their Evaluation, 8th Revision. SCCS/1501/12. http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/consumer_safety/docs/sccs_s_006.pdf, 2012.
40. United Nations Environmental Programme, State of the Science of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. http://www.unep.org/chemicalsandwaste/UNEPsWork/StateoftheScience/tabid/105913/Default.aspx, 2012.
41. Weed, D.L., Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal. 25:6 (2005), 1545–1557, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x.
42. Whaley, P., Halsall, C., Ågerstrand, M., Benford, D., Aiassa, E., Bilotta, G., et al. Implementing Systematic Review Techniques in Chemical Risk Assessment: Challenges, Opportunities and Recommendations. 2015 (submitted for publication, Paper).