Key Elements for Judging the Quality of a Risk Assessment
Open Access
- 1 August 2016
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Chemical Society (ACS) in Environmental Health Perspectives
- Vol. 124 (8) , 1127-1135
Abstract
Background: Many reports have been published that contain recommendations for improving the quality, transparency, and usefulness of decision making for risk assessments prepared by agencies of the U.S. federal government. A substantial measure of consensus has emerged regarding the characteristics that high-quality assessments should possess. Objective: The goal was to summarize the key characteristics of a high-quality assessment as identified in the consensus-building process and to integrate them into a guide for use by decision makers, risk assessors, peer reviewers and other interested stakeholders to determine if an assessment meets the criteria for high quality. Discussion: Most of the features cited in the guide are applicable to any type of assessment, whether it encompasses one, two, or all four phases of the risk-assessment paradigm; whether it is qualitative or quantitative; and whether it is screening level or highly sophisticated and complex. Other features are tailored to specific elements of an assessment. Just as agencies at all levels of government are responsible for determining the effectiveness of their programs, so too should they determine the effectiveness of their assessments used in support of their regulatory decisions. Furthermore, if a nongovernmental entity wishes to have its assessments considered in the governmental regulatory decision-making process, then these assessments should be judged in the same rigorous manner and be held to similar standards. Conclusions: The key characteristics of a high-quality assessment can be summarized and integrated into a guide for judging whether an assessment possesses the desired features of high quality, transparency, and usefulness. Citation: Fenner-Crisp PA, Dellarco VL. 2016. Key elements for judging the quality of a risk assessment. Environ Health Perspect 124:1127–1135; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1510483Keywords
This publication has 20 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for clothianidin and thiamethoxam according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005EFSA Journal, 2014
- Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for thiophanate‐methyl and carbendazim according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005EFSA Journal, 2014
- New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysisJournal of Applied Toxicology, 2013
- International Frameworks Dealing with Human Risk Assessment of Combined Exposure to Multiple ChemicalsEFSA Journal, 2013
- Submission of scientific peer‐reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009EFSA Journal, 2011
- Meeting The Common Needs of a More Effective and Efficient Testing and Assessment Paradigm for Chemical Risk ManagementJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part B, 2010
- Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision makingEFSA Journal, 2010
- The Key Events Dose-Response Framework: A Cross-Disciplinary Mode-of-Action Based Approach to Examining Dose-Response and ThresholdsCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 2009
- IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for HumansCritical Reviews in Toxicology, 2008
- IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Cancer Mode of Action for HumansCritical Reviews in Toxicology, 2006