When conducting risk assessments, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not currently consider the beneficial effects from exposure to concentrations of agents below the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL). If such benefits were observed, and if the beneficial and toxicological mechanisms of action were identical, this would probably be represented as a ‘j–shaped’ hormetic dose–response curve. If such data are available, they should be considered when assigning uncertainty factors for safe exposure calculations. However, when such data are not readily available, as is likely the case when the mechanism of action of the benefit differs from that of toxicity, current US EPA methods appear adequate.
2 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) . Risk assessment and management: framework for decision making, EPA 600/9-85-002, Washington, DC, 1984.
3.
3 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) . Guidelines for carcinogen risk EPA 600/8-87-045. Risk Assessment Forum, Washington, DC, 1986.
4.
4 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) . Risk assessment for superfund. Human health evaluation manual, supplemental guidance, standard default exposure factors, Volume I. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC , 1991.
5.
5 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) . Methods for derivation of inhalation reference concentrations and application to dosimetry, EPA 600/8-90/ 066F, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC , 1994.
6.
6 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) . Risk assessment guidance reforms, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC , 1996.
8 US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) . An examination of EPA risk assessment principles and practices, Staff Paper prepared by the Risk Assessment Task Force, EPA/100/B-04/001, Office of the Science Advisor, Washington, DC , 2004.
9.
9 Rowe WD . An anatomy of risk. New York: John Wiley & Sons , 1977.
11 Whitney SC . Technical and scientific evidence in administrative adjudication . Univ Cin L Rev1976; 45: 37-55 .
12.
12 Black B . A unified theory of scientific evidence . Fordham L Rev1988; 56: 595-695 .
13.
13 Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government . Science and technology in judicial decision making: creating opportunities and meeting challenges. New York: Carnegie Commission Press , 1993.
14.
14 Faigman DL , Kaye DH , Saks MJ , Sanders J . Science in the law: standards, statistics and research issues. St Paul, MN: West Group , 2002.
15.
15 National Research Council . Risk assessment in the federal government: managing the process. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press , 1983.
16.
16 National Research Council . Science and judgment in risk assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press , 1994.
17.
17 Roberts WC , Abernathy Co.Risk assessment: principles and methodologies. In Fan AM , Chang LW eds. Toxicology and risk assessment: principles, methods, and applications. New York: Marcel Dekker , 1996: 245-270.
18.
18 Government Accounting Office (GAO) . Chemical risk assessment: selected federal agencies. Procedures, assumptions, and policies. GAO-01-810, 2001.
19.
19 Klaassen CD , Doull J . Evaluation of safety: toxicologic evaluation. In Doull J , Klaassen CD , Amdur MO eds. Casarett and Doull's toxicology, second edition. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company , 1980: 11-27.
20.
20 Bliss CI . The calculation of the dosage-mortality curve . Ann Appl Biol1935; 22: 134-167 .
21.
21 Litchfield JT , Wilcoxon FA . A simplified method of evaluating dose-effect experiments . J Pharmacol Exp Ther1949; 96: 99-113 .
22.
22 Munro IC , Krewski DR . Risk assessment and regulatory decision making . Food Cosmet Toxicol1981; 19: 549-560 .
23.
23 Paustenbach DJ . A survey of health risk assessment. In Paustenbach DJ ed. The risk assessment of environmental hazards. New York: Wiley and Sons , 1989: 27-124.
24.
24 Borgert CJ , Quill TF , McCarty LS , Mason AM . Can mode of action predict mixture toxicity for risk assessment?Toxicol Appl Pharmacol2004; 201: 85-96 .
25.
25 Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LA . The frequency of U-shaped dose-responses in the toxicological literature . Toxicol Sci2001; 62: 330-338 .
26.
26 Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LA . The hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology . Toxicol Sci2003; 71: 246-250 .
27.
27 European Commission (EU) . Opinion of the scientific committee on food on the tolerable upper intake level of selenium, SCF/CS/NUT/UPPLEV/24 Final, Bruxelles, 2000.
28.
28 Calabrese EJ . Expanding the RfD concept to incorporate and optimize beneficial effects while preventing toxic responses from non-essential toxicants . BELLE1995; 4: 1-10 .
