Risk Assessment - HH-RA.org

Bibliography Tag: risk assessment

Tang et al., 2021

Tang, Fiona H. M., Lenzen, Manfred, McBratney, Alexander, & Maggi, Federico; “Risk of pesticide pollution at the global scale;” Nature Geoscience, 2021; DOI: 10.1038/s41561-021-00712-5.

ABSTRACT:

Pesticides are widely used to protect food production and meet global food demand but are also ubiquitous environmental pollutants, causing adverse effects on water quality, biodiversity and human health. Here we use a global database of pesticide applications and a spatially explicit environmental model to estimate the world geography of environmental pollution risk caused by 92 active ingredients in 168 countries. We considered a region to be at risk of pollution if pesticide residues in the environment exceeded the no-effect concentrations, and to be at high risk if residues exceeded this by three orders of magnitude. We find that 64% of global agricultural land (approximately 24.5 million km2) is at risk of pesticide pollution by more than one active ingredient, and 31% is at high risk. Among the high-risk areas, about 34% are in high-biodiversity regions, 5% in water-scarce areas and 19% in low- and lower-middle-income nations. We identify watersheds in South Africa, China, India, Australia and Argentina as high-concern regions because they have high pesticide pollution risk, bear high biodiversity and suffer from water scarcity. Our study expands earlier pesticide risk assessments as it accounts for multiple active ingredients and integrates risks in different environmental compartments at a global scale. FULL TEXT

Lamichhane, 2017

Lamichhane, Jay Ram; “Pesticide use and risk reduction in European farming systems with IPM: An introduction to the special issue;” Crop Protection, 2017, 97, 1-6; DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2017.01.017.

ABSTRACT:

Not available.

FULL TEXT

Perry et al., 2002

Perry, M. J., Marbella, A., & Layde, P. M.; “Compliance with required pesticide-specific protective equipment use;” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2002, 41(1), 70-73; DOI: 10.1002/ajim.10026.

ABSTRACT:

BACKGROUND: This study measured compliance with pesticide-specific protective gear use requirements practiced by farmers applying pesticides to field crops.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two hundred and twenty randomly selected dairy farmers were interviewed 1 week after pesticide application to determine use of personal protective equipment while applying at least 1 of 15 possible restricted use pesticides (response rate = 82.4%).

RESULTS: Among the three most common pesticides used (dicamba, atrazine, and cyanazine), the proportions of farmers fully complying with gear use requirements were 8.8, 8.6, and 2.5%, respectively. For those same pesticides, the proportions (and 95% CI) using none of the required gear were 56.9% (47.3-66.5%), 38.6% (27.2-50.0%), and 47.5%(32.0-63.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Both full and partial compliance with required personal protective equipment was low for each of the 15 chemicals applied by the applicators in this sample.

Sheppard et al., 2020

Sheppard, L., McGrew, S., & Fenske, R. A.; “Flawed analysis of an intentional human dosing study and its impact on chlorpyrifos risk assessments;” Environment International, 2020, 143, 105905; DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2020.105905.

ABSTRACT:

In March 1972, Frederick Coulston and colleagues at the Albany Medical College reported results of an intentional chlorpyrifos dosing study to the study’s sponsor, Dow Chemical Company. Their report concluded that 0.03 mg/kg-day was the chronic no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) for chlorpyrifos in humans. We demonstrate here that a proper analysis by the original statistical method should have found a lower NOAEL (0.014 mg/kg-day), and that use of statistical methods first available in 1982 would have shown that even the lowest dose in the study had a significant treatment effect. The original analysis, conducted by Dow-employed statisticians, did not undergo formal peer review; nevertheless, EPA cited the Coulston study as credible research and kept its reported NOAEL as a point of departure for risk assessments throughout much of the 1980’s and 1990’s. During that period, EPA allowed chlorpyrifos to be registered for multiple residential uses that were later cancelled to reduce potential health impacts to children and infants. Had appropriate analyses been employed in the evaluation of this study, it is likely that many of those registered uses of chlorpyrifos would not have been authorized by EPA. This work demonstrates that reliance by pesticide regulators on research results that have not been properly peer-reviewed may needlessly endanger the public. FULL TEXT

Kougias et al., 2020

Kougias, D. G., Miller, E., McEwen, A., Reamer, H., Kovochich, M., & Pierce, J.; “Risk Assessment of Glyphosate Exposures from Pilot Study with Simulated Heavy Residential Consumer Application of Roundup((R)) using a Margin of Safety (MOS) Approach;” Risk Analysis, 2020; DOI: 10.1111/risa.13646.

ABSTRACT:

Due to the widespread application of glyphosate, a nonselective herbicide, to a variety of resistant food crops, the general population is exposed to glyphosate through dietary intake. Despite this, dietary exposures to glyphosate are considered low in comparison to application-related exposures. Although previous studies have evaluated exposure to horticultural and agricultural workers, to date only one study, which we recently conducted, has characterized exposure to glyphosate in consumers following heavy residential application of a glyphosate-containing herbicide in a residential yard and garden setting. In this previous study, we demonstrated that urinary glyphosate concentrations in these applicators were similar to or in some circumstances greater than those in occupational applicators, likely due to the nature of the simulation study, which ensured a heavy application protocol. However, it is unknown whether these urinary glyphosate concentrations in consumer applicators correspond to internal doses that may be of concern. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to provide a comprehensive risk assessment of glyphosate exposure in consumer applicators using a margin of safety approach. Here, we incorporated data collected from multiple spot urine samples across time from our previous study that assessed consumer exposure to glyphosate from Roundup((R)) application. Estimated internal doses, even with the use of conservative assumptions across unique approaches, were below internal doses estimated from established health-based guidance values. Overall, this study demonstrates that glyphosate exposure from even heavy consumer application of a commercially available glyphosate-containing herbicide does not appear to be a health concern. FULL TEXT

Robinson et al., 2020

Robinson, Claire, Portier, Christopher J., ČAvoŠKi, Aleksandra, Mesnage, Robin, Roger, Apolline, Clausing, Peter, Whaley, Paul, Muilerman, Hans, & Lyssimachou, Angeliki; “Achieving a High Level of Protection from Pesticides in Europe: Problems with the Current Risk Assessment Procedure and Solutions;” European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2020, 11(3), 450-480; DOI: 10.1017/err.2020.18.

ABSTRACT:

The regulation of pesticides in the European Union (EU) relies on a network of hard law (legislation and implementing acts) and soft law (non-legally binding guidance documents and administrative and scientific practices). Both hard and soft laws govern how risk assessments are conducted, but a significant role is left to the latter. Europe’s pesticide regulation is one of the most stringent in the world. Its stated objectives are to ensure an independent, objective and transparent assessment of pesticides and achieve a high level of protection for health and environment. However, a growing body of evidence shows that pesticides that have passed through this process and are authorised for use may harm humans, animals and the environment. The authors of the current paper – experts in toxicology, law and policy – identified shortcomings in the authorisation process, focusing on the EU assessment of the pesticide active substance glyphosate. The shortcomings mostly consist of failures to implement the hard or soft laws. But in some instances the law itself is responsible, as some provisions can only fail to achieve its objectives. Ways to improve the system are proposed, requiring changes in hard and soft laws as well as in administrative and scientific practices. FULL TEXT

Ruden and Grandjean, 2018

Mie, A., Ruden, C., & Grandjean, P.; “Safety of Safety Evaluation of Pesticides: developmental neurotoxicity of chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-methyl;” Environmental Health, 2018, 17(1), 77; DOI: 10.1186/s12940-018-0421-y.

ABSTRACT:

Authorization of pesticides for market release requires toxicity testing on animals, typically performed by test laboratories on contract with the pesticide producer. The latter provides the results and summary to the regulatory authorities. For the commonly used pesticide chlorpyrifos, an industry-funded toxicity study concludes that no selective effects on neurodevelopment occur even at high exposures. In contrast, the evidence from independent studies points to adverse effects of current exposures on cognitive development in children. We reviewed the industry-funded developmental neurotoxicity test data on chlorpyrifos and the related substance chlorpyrifos-methyl. We noted treatment-related changes in a brain dimension measure for chlorpyrifos at all dose levels tested, although not been reported in the original test summary. We further found issues which inappropriately decrease the ability of the studies to reveal true effects, including a dosage regimen that resulted in too low exposure of the nursing pups for chlorpyrifos and possibly for chlorpyrifos-methyl, and a failure to detect any neurobehavioral effects of lead nitrate used as positive control in the chlorpyrifos study. Our observations thus suggest that conclusions in test reports submitted by the producer may be misleading. This discrepancy affects the ability of regulatory authorities to perform a valid and safe evaluation of these pesticides. The difference between raw data and conclusions in the test reports indicates a potential existence of bias that would require regulatory attention and possible resolution. FULL TEXT

Boone et al., 2014

Boone, Michelle D., Bishop, Christine A., Boswell, Leigh A., Brodman, Robert D., Burger, Joanna, Davidson, Carlos, Gochfeld, Michael, Hoverman, Jason T., Neuman-Lee, Lorin A., Relyea, Rick A., Rohr, Jason R., Salice, Christopher, Semlitsch, Raymond D., Sparling, Donald, & Weir, Scott; “Pesticide Regulation amid the Influence of Industry;” BioScience, 2014, 64(10), 917-922; DOI: 10.1093/biosci/biu138.

ABSTRACT:

Pesticide use results in the widespread distribution of chemical contaminants, which necessites regulatory agencies to assess the risks to environmental and human health. However, risk assessment is compromised when relatively few studies are used to determine impacts, particularly if most of the data used in an assessment are produced by a pesticide’s manufacturer, which constitutes a conflict of interest. Here, we present the shortcomings of the US Environmental Protection Agency’s pesticide risk assessment process, using the recent reassessment of atrazine’s impacts on amphibians as an example. We then offer solutions to improve the risk assessment process, which would reduce the potential for and perception of bias in a process that is crucial for environmental and human health. FULL TEXT

Benbrook, 2020

Benbrook, Charles; “Shining a Light on Glyphosate-Based Herbicide Hazard, Exposures and Risk: Role of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Litigation in the USA;” European Journal of Risk Regulation, 2020, 11(3), 498-519; DOI: 10.1017/err.2020.16.

ABSTRACT:

Roundup, and other glyphosate-based herbicides, are the most heavily used pesticides in the history of the USA and globally. In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen”. A portion of the 695,000 Americans then living in 2015 with non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) became aware of IARC’s decision. Several thousand Roundup–NHL lawsuits had been filed by the end of 2017, rising to 18,400 by July 2019 and 42,000 by November 2019. Three cases have gone to trial, each won by the plaintiffs. The author has served as an expert witness for the plaintiffs in this litigation and has been compensated for his time spent. The impact of the litigation on the independent assessment of the science useful in determining whether glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicide exposures are linked to NHL is reviewed, as is why the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and IARC reached such different judgements regarding glyphosate human cancer hazard and risk. Two important “lessons learned” regarding the EPA versus IARC assessment of glyphosate cancer hazard and risk are highlighted. The first arises from differences in the magnitude of applicator risks from mostly dermal exposures to formulated glyphosate-based herbicides compared to just dietary exposures to technical glyphosate. The second relates to missed opportunities to markedly lower applicator exposures and risks with little or no impact on sales via reformulation, added warnings and worker safety provisions, company-driven stewardship programmes and greater determination by the EPA in the 1980s to compel Monsanto to add common-sense worker protection provisions onto Roundup labels (eg “wear gloves when applying this product”). Policy reforms designed to alleviate systemic problems with how pesticide hazards, exposures and risks are analysed, regulated and mitigated are described. FULL TEXT

Apel et al., 2020

Apel, P., Rousselle, C., Lange, R., Sissoko, F., Kolossa-Gehring, M., & Ougier, E.; “Human biomonitoring initiative (HBM4EU) – Strategy to derive human biomonitoring guidance values (HBM-GVs) for health risk assessment;” International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 2020, 230, 113622; DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2020.113622.

ABSTRACT:

The European Joint Program “HBM4EU” is a joint effort of 30 countries and the European Environment Agency, co-funded under the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 program, for advancing and implementing human biomonitoring (HBM) on a European scale and for providing scientific evidence for chemical policy making. One important outcome will be a Europe-wide improvement and harmonization of health risk assessment following the coordinated derivation or update of health-related guidance values referring to the internal body burden. These guidance values – named HBM guidance values or HBM-GVs – can directly be compared with HBM data. They are derived within HBM4EU for priority substances identified by the HBM4EU chemicals prioritization strategy based on existing needs to answer policy relevant questions as raised by national and EU policy makers. HBM-GVs refer to both the general population and occupationally exposed adults. Reports including the detailed reasoning for the values’ proposals are subjected to a consultation process within all partner countries of the consortium to reach a broad scientific consensus on the derivation approach and on the derived values. The final HBM-GVs should be applied first within the HBM4EU project, but may also be useful for regulators and risk assessors outside this project. The subsequent adoption of derived HBM-GVs at EU-level needs to be discussed and decided within the responsible EU bodies. Nevertheless, the establishment of HBM-GVs as part of HBM4EU is already a step forward in strengthening HBM-based policy efforts for public and occupational health. The strategy for deriving HBM-GVs which is based on already existing approaches from the German HBM Commission, the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety (ANSES) as well as from the US-based scientific consultant Summit Toxicology, the allocation of a level of confidence to the derived values, and the consultation process within the project are comprehensively described to enlighten the work accomplished under the HBM4EU initiative. FULL TEXT

Bibliography Index