Advances in Risk Assessment and Communication

Goldstein, Bernard D.

doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144410

Cited by 31 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 122 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…inhalation, ingestion, and dermal) [10,11]. Biomonitoring techniques can be divided into three basic categories: biomarkers of exposure, effect and susceptibility [12,13]. Previously restricted to logistically challenging and costly academic research and occupational cohort studies, biomonitoring techniques, particularly for exposure, have become more widely available, practical, and less expensive.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: a survey of scientists and study participants

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundExposure assessment has shifted from pollutant monitoring in air, soil, and water toward personal exposure measurements and biomonitoring. This trend along with the paucity of health effect data for many of the pollutants studied raise ethical and scientific challenges for reporting results to study participants.MethodsWe interviewed 26 individuals involved in biomonitoring studies, including academic scientists, scientists from environmental advocacy organizations, IRB officials, and study participants; observed meetings where stakeholders discussed these issues; and reviewed the relevant literature to assess emerging ethical, scientific, and policy debates about personal exposure assessment and biomonitoring, including public demand for information on the human health effects of chemical body burdens.ResultsWe identify three frameworks for report-back in personal exposure studies: clinical ethics; community-based participatory research; and citizen science 'data judo.' The first approach emphasizes reporting results only when the health significance of exposures is known, while the latter two represent new communication strategies where study participants play a role in interpreting, disseminating, and leveraging results to promote community health. We identify five critical areas to consider in planning future biomonitoring studies.ConclusionPublic deliberation about communication in personal exposure assessment research suggests that new forms of community-based research ethics and participatory scientific practice are emerging.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: a survey of scientists and study participants

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, risk management is closely connected with risk assessment. The idea that risk assessment is completely independent of risk management is a myth that emerged during the strategy's early development [54]. In recent years, risk assessment strategies were linked with research evidence in clinical practice, and risk assessment tools began to incorporate aspects of risk management.…”

Section: Management Of the Riskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Assessment and Manage- ment of Violence in Patients with Mental Disorders: A Re- view

Shiina¹

2015

FLIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Although the IARC monographs evaluations emphasize hazard identification, and further data (i.e., dose-response analysis, exposure assessment and risk characterization [26,27]) have to be considered to characterize the actual cancer risk; we think that it is a prudent public health policy to limit human exposure to the above mentioned 'IARC group 1' agents, for which a causal relationship clearly has been established between exposure to the agent and human cancer.…”

Section: Carcinogenic Agents In Food With High-est Level Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Carcinogens in Food: Opportunities and Challenges for Regulatory Toxicology

Lachenmeier¹

2009

TOTOXIJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The risk of developing cancer from carcinogens occurring in food is of widespread interest to scientific researchers, food policymakers and food surveillance institutions, as well as to the general public. When evaluating the risk of carcinogenic food contaminants or carcinogenic foodstuff per se (e.g., alcoholic beverages), the level of scientific evidence should be reflected more clearly. In the past, interest often focused on 'fashionable' agents with only moderate levels of evidence of their carcinogenicity (e.g., acrylamide or furan); whereas agents with the highest level of evidence (e.g., substances classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as group 1, being 'carcinogenic to humans') were sometimes disregarded. For example, important carcinogens such as arsenic (a contaminant in drinking water), cadmium and other heavy metals, but also benzene, were not even mentioned in a recent review article about carcinogenic food contaminants. Research, control and prevention strategies for carcinogenic agents in food should comprise a risk-oriented approach and should not lose sight of agents that pose an immediate and scientifically quantifiable threat. Suitable strategies include the use of quantitative risk assessments, for example the use of the Margin of Exposure (MOE) approach.

show abstract

Advances in Risk Assessment and Communication

Cited by 31 publications

References 122 publications

Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: a survey of scientists and study participants

Toxic ignorance and right-to-know in biomonitoring results communication: a survey of scientists and study participants

Risk Assessment and Manage- ment of Violence in Patients with Mental Disorders: A Re- view

Carcinogens in Food: Opportunities and Challenges for Regulatory Toxicology

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About