Fundamentals of health risk assessment. Use, derivation, validity and limitations of safety indices.

Abstract

We investigated the way results of human health risk assessments are used, and the theory used to describe those methods, sometimes called the "NAS paradigm." Contrary to a key tenet of that theory, current methods have strictly limited utility. The characterizations now considered standard, Safety Indices such as "Acceptable Daily Intake," "Reference Dose," and so on, usefully inform only decisions that require a choice between two policy alternatives (e.g., approve a food additive or not), decided solely on the basis of a finding of safety. Risk is characterized as the quotient of one of these Safety Indices divided by an estimate of exposure: a quotient greater than one implies that the situation may be considered safe. Such decisions are very widespread, both in the U.S. federal government and elsewhere. No current method is universal; different policies lead to different practices, for example, in California's "Proposition 65," where statutory provisions specify some practices. Further, an important kind of human health risk assessment is not recognized by this theory: this kind characterizes risk as likelihood of harm, given estimates of exposure consequent to various decision choices. Likelihood estimates are necessary whenever decision makers have many possible decision choices and must weigh more than two societal values, such as in EPA's implementation of "conventional air pollutants." These estimates can not be derived using current methods; different methods are needed. Our analysis suggests changes needed in both the theory and practice of human health risk assessment, and how what is done is depicted.