This collection of 10 papers, presented at the 5th International Symposium on the Sediment Quality Assessment (SQA5) in Chicago, IL, 16–18 October, 2002, offers to the reader a digest of the new trends in ‘Assessing Risk and Impacts of Contaminants in Sediments.’Hopefully this doesn't disappoint those comfortable with current approaches because new ideas and techniques are discussed which expand ways to tackle this complicated subject. For instance, Peter Chapman in his paper criticizes what seems to be written in stone, that is, Paracelsus’ dictum that ‘the right dose makes the poison.’ After (rightly) pointing out the many misinterpretations of this dictum by scientists, regulators and stakeholders, Dr. Chapman arrives at a new golden rule: ‘The right dose of a bioavailable substance, administered under realistic exposure conditions, differentiates a poison.’The examples (estuarine and freshwater stream communities) of the systematic approach to weight-of-evidence in sediment quality assessment provided by Valery Forbes and Peter Calow, nicely complements this view, suggesting a way to retrospectively assess sediment quality and successfully discriminate between possible stressors. And, again, Fred Lee and Anne Jones-Lee, further press the point that the presence alone of a chemical constituent in a sediment, by itself does not mean that an adverse effect will be manifested. I'm sure many will disagree with the statement that the ‘sediment quality guideline is technically invalid,’ but in this paper I found convincing evidence that we should move towards the non-numeric, triad weight of evidence approach suggested.Two papers by Tracey et al., in Louisiana, and by Dave and Nilsson, in Sweden report interesting results regarding the application of the Toxicity Identification Evaluation methodology. In both cases, the approach looks quite complicated, but yet, effective and useful . . . also raising more questions than providing answers!Many at the conference and in this issue point to the need and usefulness of new technical assessment tools. These could be special devices like the solid phase microextraction fibers used by Conder et al. to investigate the toxicity of nitroaromatic compounds, or special genomic techniques, like the gene expression fingerprinting employed by Perkins et al. to discriminate between different contaminant stress responses in chironomids, or the use of transgenic cell lines as a screening assay described by Inouye et al.The last two papers of this issue remind us that contaminated sediments are often not ‘only’ chemically polluted, especially in regards to human health where pathogenic microorganisms could be a serious concern. The Kinzelman et al. paper refers to a basic, but often overlooked factor: representative sampling. They suggest we should reconsider the way we approach this problem of sediment quality assessment. The other paper, by Indest et al., is even more critical of traditional microbiology, stating that ‘Current accepted bacterial indicator methods do not provide defensible data with respect to the occurrence and types of pathogens in sediments.’ So, it seems that we need to make more use of polymerase chain reaction techniques!Despite these calls for change, readers need not feel they must change everything they are currently doing. Be aware that these 10 papers are just examples of additional assessment tools and approaches which were discussed at SQA5. Additional papers from SQA5 are being processed currently which will be published in another special issue of the Journal!That's the real world: scientists seem to have endless ingenuity when it comes to finding new ways to assess risks and impacts of contaminants in sediments.