Hormesis in precautionary regulatory culture: models preferences and the advancement of science

Abstract

<jats:p> The article focuses on flaws in the actual approaches of exposure to a chemical of recipient organisms. It demonstrates the excessive use of arguments based on adverse effects and underlines the necessity to take adaptive effects seriously. Regulators are invited to rethink their inclination to the `When in doubt, keep it out.' precautionary approach, with results in counter-productive and costly regulations. The authors are clear about the necessity to include hormesis, in the form of a toxicological insignificant exposure (TIE) level, related to the concentration, as a regulatory translation of adaptive effects. This inclusion might well be the `brake' for the looming `collision' with reality of the actual linear toxicological models. This analysis includes the advice to EPA, not to follow the `witch hunt of synthetic chemicals' as embodied in the EU REACH program. Human &amp; Experimental Toxicology (2007) 26, 855 — 873 </jats:p>

Of Reductionism and The Pendulum Swing: Connecting Toxicology and Human Health

“…This is to all intents and purposes the regulatory use of the linear no-threshold model (LNT): when dealing with genotoxic carcinogens the ‘no-dose no-disease’ approach is regarded as the safest regulatory route (Calabrese and Baldwin 2003; despite the fact that it depicts a non-existing physico-chemical reality barred by the Second Law of Thermodynamics). Concisely, the explicit goal of zero tolerance is not risk -based but precaution -based, as the absence of a MRL is from a regulatory point of view translated as ‘dangerous at any dose’ (Hanekamp and Bast 2007).…”

Exploring health and toxicity in food choices: 10 examples navigating the gray area

“…The principle reflects the impossibility to provide absolute proof of safety. The precautionary principle seems to offer guidance on what to regulate (1). However, by definition it does not.…”

Precautionary principle for toxic chemicals — no alternative to safeguard societal benefits

“…15 of the Rio Declaration (1992). J Hanekamp et al 1 have copiously elucidated in their article the ambiguity of social behaviour in developing an increasing risk-adversity but accepting the 'safer human life in modern society' as being a risk-free by-product of industrial activities. They laid stress on the point that society basically accepts the mere presence of a man-made chemical substance being a risk per se while ignoring the facts that there is often a benefit even at small doses.…”