Transparency and documentation of the decision process are at the core of a credible risk assessment and, in addition, are essential in the presentation of a weight of evidence (WoE)-based approach. Lack of confidence in the risk assessment process (as the basis for a risk management decision), beginning with evaluation of raw data and continuing through the risk decision process, is largely because of issues surrounding transparency. There is a critical need to implement greater transparency throughout the risk assessment process, and although doing so will not guarantee the correctness of the risk assessment or that all risk assessors come up with the same conclusions, it will provide essential information on how a particular conclusion or decision was made, thereby increasing confidence in the conclusions. Recognizing this issue, the International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute convened a multisector committee tasked with discussing this issue and examining existing guidance and recommendations related to transparency in risk assessment. The committee concluded that transparency is inextricably linked to credibility: credibility of the data, credibility of the risk assessment process, and credibility of the resulting decision making. To increase this credibility, existing guidance concerning criteria elements of transparency related to the risk assessment process must be more widely disseminated and applied, and raw data for studies used in human health and environmental risk assessment must be more widely available. Finally, the decision-making process in risk management must be better documented and a guidance framework established for both the process itself and its communication to the public.

The CA Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) and the CA Air Resources Board monitored 40 pesticides, including five degradation products, in Parlier, CA, to determine if its residents were exposed to any of these pesticides and, if so, in what amounts. They included 1,3-dichloropropene, acrolein, arsenic, azinphos-methyl, carbon disulfide, chlorpyrifos and its degradation product, chlorthalonil, copper, cypermethrin, diazinon and its degradation product, dichlorvos, dicofol, dimethoate and its degradation product, diuron, endosulfan and its degradation product, S-ethyl dipropylcarbamothioate (EPTC), formaldehyde, malathion and its degradation product, methyl isothiocyanate (MITC), methyl bromide, metolachlor, molinate, norflurazon, oryzalin, oxyfluorfen, permethrin, phosmet, propanil, propargite, simazine, SSS-tributylphosphorotrithioate, sulfur, thiobencarb, trifluralin, and xylene. Monitoring was conducted 3 days per week for a year. Twenty-three pesticides and degradation products were detected. Acrolein, arsenic, carbon disulfide, chlorpyrifos, copper, formaldehyde, methyl bromide, MITC, and sulfur were detected in more than half the samples. Since no regulatory ambient air standards exist for these pesticides, CDPR developed advisory, health-based non-cancer screening levels (SLs) to assess acute, subchronic, and chronic exposures. For carcinogenic pesticides, CDPR assessed risk using cancer potency values. Amongst non-carcinogenic agricultural use pesticides, only diazinon exceeded its SL. For carcinogens, 1,3-dichloropropene concentrations exceeded its cancer potency value. Based on these findings, CDPR has undertaken a more comprehensive evaluation of 1,3-dichloropropene, diazinon, and the closely related chlorpyrifos that was frequently detected. Four chemicals-acrolein, arsenic, carbon disulfide, and formaldehyde-sometimes used as pesticides were detected, although no pesticidal use was reported in the area during this study. Their presence was most likely due to vehicular or industrial emissions.

No abstract