Effects‐initiated assessments are not risk assessments

Abstract

True risk assessments address the probability of a future risk occurring given a certain set of circumstances. However, “effects‐initiated assessments”; or “retrospective assessments”; often are improperly included under the broad appellation of “risk assessment”; and are conducted when an apparently adverse effect is seen in some environmental component and the question of cause (i.e., etiology) is raised. Base line risk assessments at Superfund sites or for Natural Resource Damage Assessments are examples of effects‐initiated assessments. We argue here that this type of study is not a risk assessment, either by strict definition of terminology or by logical approach taken in answering the posed question (s), and should more properly be called “diagnostic ecology.”; Diagnostic ecology starts from the premise that ecological effects have occurred and exposure to a Stressor has taken place. The problem then is to pose all possible etiologies and utilize deductive logic to systematically eliminate each agent except for one as the actual cause. A risk assessment, on the other hand, employs inductive reasoning. That is, hypotheses are generated about the possible sources of a stressor and the possible outcome if exposure occurs. Both exercises require an understanding of the ecological relationships of the various components in the ecosystem, both need an understanding of die cause‐and‐effect relationships of agents, and both require a proper framing of the questions being asked. However, risk assessors should not try to fit all environmental impact assessments into a single framework, but rather should recognize that biomedical techniques are better suited for solving diagnostic riddles than are prospective risk assessment approaches.