Abstract
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a Staff Paper that articulates current risk assessment practices. In section 4.1.3, EPA states, "... effects that appear to be adaptive, non-adverse, or beneficial may not be mentioned." This statement may be perceived as precluding risk assessments based on non-default risk models, including the hormetic--or biphasic--dose-response model. This commentary examines several potential interpretations of this statement and the anticipated impact of ignoring hormesis, if present, in light of necessary conservatism for protecting human and environmental health, and the potential for employing alternative risk assessment approaches.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
