Suchergebnisse

One of the concerns often voiced by critics of the precautionary principle is that a widespread regulatory application of the principle will lead to a large number of false positives (i.e., over‐regulation of minor risks and regulation of nonexisting risks). The present article proposes a general definition of a regulatory false positive, and seeks to identify case studies that can be considered authentic regulatory false positives. Through a comprehensive review of the science policy literature for proclaimed false positives and interviews with authorities on regulation and the precautionary principle we identified 88 cases. Following a detailed analysis of these cases, we found that few of the cases mentioned in the literature can be considered to be authentic false positives. As a result, we have developed a number of different categories for these cases of "mistaken false positives," including: real risks, "The jury is still out," nonregulated proclaimed risks, "Too narrow a definition of risk," and risk‐risk tradeoffs. These categories are defined and examples are presented in order to illustrate their key characteristics. On the basis of our analysis, we were able to identify only four cases that could be defined as regulatory false positives in the light of today's knowledge and recognized uncertainty: the Southern Corn Leaf Blight, the Swine Flu, Saccharin, and Food Irradiation in relation to consumer health. We conclude that concerns about false positives do not represent a reasonable argument against future application of the precautionary principle.

The use of alternatives assessment to substitute hazardous chemicals with inherently safer options is gaining momentum worldwide as a legislative and corporate strategy to minimize consumer, occupational, and environmental risks. Engineered nanomaterials represent an interesting case for alternatives assessment approaches as they can be considered both emerging "chemicals" of concern, as well as potentially safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. However, comparing the hazards of nanomaterials to traditional chemicals or to other nanomaterials is challenging and critical elements in chemical hazard and exposure assessment may have to be fundamentally altered to sufficiently address nanomaterials. The aim of this paper is to assess the overall applicability of alternatives assessment methods for nanomaterials and outline recommendations to enhance their use in this context. This paper focuses on the adaptability of existing hazard and exposure assessment approaches to engineered nanomaterials as well as strategies to design inherently safer nanomaterials. We argue that alternatives assessment for nanomaterials is complicated by the sheer number of nanomaterials possible. As a result, the inclusion of new data tools that can efficiently and effectively evaluate nanomaterials as substitutes are needed to strengthen the alternatives assessment process. However, we conclude that with additional tools to enhance traditional hazard and exposure assessment modules of alternatives assessment, such as the use of mechanistic toxicity screens and control banding tools, alternatives assessment can be adapted to evaluate engineered nanomaterials both as potential substitutes for chemicals of concern and to ensure safer nanomaterials are incorporated in the design of new products. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Alternatives Assessment is gaining traction as a systematic method to support the informed substitution of chemicals of concern. The 2018 International Symposium on Alternatives Assessment, on November 1‐2, 2018 convened nearly 150 professionals from government agencies, industry, consultant firms, academia and advocacy organizations to advance a greater understanding of the evolving methods, practices and challenges in the use of alternatives assessment. This article reviews highlights and lessons from the Symposium, including: (1) notable advances in methods, (2) shared insights from practitioners on best practices as well as inherent tensions and challenges, and (3) research and practice needs in the field that can be addressed by organizations such as the newly launched Association for the Advancement of Alternatives Assessment. Being interdisciplinary in nature, the establishment of educational frameworks across disciplines and inclusion of diverse expertise in hazard and exposure assessments, life cycle impacts considerations, design principles, and economic and engineering evaluations will ensure continued growth of the field.