1 / 19

Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge

Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge. Mary A. Fox, PhD, MPH Linda C. Abbott, PhD USDA Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis. Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation.

mepstein
Download Presentation

Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation: A Risk Characterization Challenge Mary A. Fox, PhD, MPH Linda C. Abbott, PhD USDA Office of Risk Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis

  2. Cumulative Risk Assessment for Pesticide Regulation • Debut of multi-chemical assessment of pesticide exposure through food, water, and residential uses • Highly refined dose-response and exposure assessment • Nationally representative dietary assessment • What do we know about risk characterization for such complex assessments?

  3. Risk Characterization DefinedNAS 1996 • From Understanding Risk: • A synthesis and summary of information about a potentially hazardous situation that addresses the needs and interests of decision makers and interested and affected parties • Analytic-deliberative process • The process of organizing, evaluating, and communicating …

  4. Outline • Identify key elements of risk characterization for probabilistic assessments • Evaluate the risk characterization chapter of the revised organophosphate (OP) assessment • Review example highlighting importance of uncertainty and sensitivity analyses

  5. Resources • Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment/Management, 1997 • US EPA Guidance • Principles for Monte-Carlo Analysis, 1997 • Risk Characterization Handbook, 2000 • US EPA Revised OP Cumulative Risk Assessment, 2002 • DEEM™ and DEEM-FCID ™ • Data files for methamidophos

  6. Presidential Commission, 1997 • Quantitative and qualitative descriptions of risk • Summarize weight of evidence • Include information on the assessment itself • Describe uncertainty and variability • Use probability distributions as appropriate • Use sensitivity analyses to identify key uncertainties • Discuss costs and value of acquiring additional information Did not recommend: • Use of formal quantitative analysis of uncertainties for routine decision-making (i.e. local, low-stakes)

  7. Excerpts fromGuiding Principles of Monte Carlo Analysis, US EPA 1997 • Selecting Input Data and Distributions • Conduct preliminary sensitivity analyses • Evaluating Variability and Uncertainty • Separate variability and uncertainty to provide greater accountability and transparency. • Presenting the Results • Provide a complete and thorough description of the model. The objectives are transparency and reproducibility.

  8. Risk Characterization Handbook, 2000 • Transparency • Explicitness • Clarity • Easy to understand • Consistency • Consistent with other EPA actions • Reasonableness • Based on sound judgment

  9. Transparency Criteria • Describe assessment approach, assumptions • Describe plausible alternative assumptions • Identify data gaps • Distinguish science from policy • Describe uncertainty • Describe relative strengths of assessment

  10. Key Elements of Risk Characterization • Separately track and describe uncertainty and variability • Conduct sensitivity analyses • Conduct formal uncertainty analyses • Transparency and reproducibility • Model components • Basic operational details

  11. Evaluation of the Revised OP Cumulative Assessment • Track and describe uncertainty and variability • Sensitivity analyses • Uncertainty analyses • Yes, but …spotty, qualitative, not comprehensive • Transparency/reproducibility – No • Significance of many inputs unknown • No mention of random seed, # iterations used

  12. Recipes – essential to dietary model • Break down foods reported in dietary recall records to commodities that can be matched with pesticide residue data • Recipes are ‘representative’ with nutritional basis • May not accurately reflect commodities eaten • E.g. beef stew with vegetables – recipe includes carrots but could be broccoli or leafy greens • DEEM ™ – proprietary recipes • DEEM-FCID ™ – EPA & USDA collaboration • Policy relevant

  13. Tomato Soup Recipe

  14. Experiment to examine importance of recipes • Focus on one chemical- methamidophos • Look at dietary exposure using DEEM ™ and DEEM-FCID ™ • Forty 1000 iteration replicates with different random number seeds • 1-6 year olds, 99.9th %ile, exposures in mg/kg-day

  15. Between Model Exposure Variability Forty 1000-Iteration Replicates, Different Random Number Seeds

  16. Within Model Exposure VariabilityForty 1000-Iteration Replicates, Different Random Number Seeds On par with US EPA findings for 1000-iteration runs

  17. Exposure variability findings in contextPreliminary data files, Children 1-2, Single 1000 iteration runs Average DEEM vs. FCID difference is 15%

  18. Risk Metric Comparison – 15% Difference Margin of Exposure (MOE) = Toxicological Benchmark Exposure Estimate Revised OPCRA Tox. Benchmark for dietary = 0.08 mg/kg-d MOE average exposure DEEM = 0.08 / 0.000753 = 106 MOE average exposure FCID = 0.08 / 0.000869 = 92

  19. Conclusions • Risk characterization is incomplete • Good guidance on risk characterization for complex models • Continue to work and share findings

More Related