New approach methodologies in human health risk assessment across European regulatory frameworks: Status quo, barriers and drivers for regulatory acceptance and use

IF 10.3 1区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Angela Bearth, Nicolas Roth, Tom Jansen, Laura Holden, Aleksandra Čavoški, Emma Di Consiglio, Ingrid Hauzenberger, Robert Lee, Enrico Mombelli, Olga Tcheremenskaia, Lina Wendt-Rasch, Martin F. Wilks
{"title":"New approach methodologies in human health risk assessment across European regulatory frameworks: Status quo, barriers and drivers for regulatory acceptance and use","authors":"Angela Bearth, Nicolas Roth, Tom Jansen, Laura Holden, Aleksandra Čavoški, Emma Di Consiglio, Ingrid Hauzenberger, Robert Lee, Enrico Mombelli, Olga Tcheremenskaia, Lina Wendt-Rasch, Martin F. Wilks","doi":"10.1016/j.envint.2025.109279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The traditional approaches to chemical risk assessment for human health are continuously challenged by their limitations, such as validity concerns, societal pressure to use animal-free methods, and resource constraints. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are considered a promising avenue toward modernisation of chemical risk assessment practices but their implementation in practice has been slow. This article aims to investigate the perspectives of human health risk assessors on the status quo, barriers and drivers of the acceptance and use of NAMs across different regulatory frameworks. A mixed method design was applied: qualitative interviews (<em>N</em> = 19) and an online survey with human health risk assessors from industry, regulatory agencies/institutions and academia (<em>N</em> = 222). The results show heterogeneity in familiarity and use of specific NAMs (e.g., QSARs as well-known and used vs. −omics approaches that are seldom used), the risk assessors’ background (e.g., industry vs. regulatory agencies and institutions vs. academia) and the application context (e.g., screening/prioritisation vs. hazard identification/characterisation). The identified barriers and drivers offer pointers for the future integration and acceptance of NAMs in regulatory risk assessment. For instance, guidance documents can facilitate the use of NAMs, showcasing successful examples that increase trust in the methods and thus, the risk assessors’ confidence in using these methods. Among other things, the article highlights the importance of considering human health risk assessors’ needs and prerequisites to foster bottom-up coordinated efforts and to ensure the success of top-down legal and institutional change to incorporate NAMs in regulatory risk assessment.","PeriodicalId":308,"journal":{"name":"Environment International","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2025.109279","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The traditional approaches to chemical risk assessment for human health are continuously challenged by their limitations, such as validity concerns, societal pressure to use animal-free methods, and resource constraints. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are considered a promising avenue toward modernisation of chemical risk assessment practices but their implementation in practice has been slow. This article aims to investigate the perspectives of human health risk assessors on the status quo, barriers and drivers of the acceptance and use of NAMs across different regulatory frameworks. A mixed method design was applied: qualitative interviews (N = 19) and an online survey with human health risk assessors from industry, regulatory agencies/institutions and academia (N = 222). The results show heterogeneity in familiarity and use of specific NAMs (e.g., QSARs as well-known and used vs. −omics approaches that are seldom used), the risk assessors’ background (e.g., industry vs. regulatory agencies and institutions vs. academia) and the application context (e.g., screening/prioritisation vs. hazard identification/characterisation). The identified barriers and drivers offer pointers for the future integration and acceptance of NAMs in regulatory risk assessment. For instance, guidance documents can facilitate the use of NAMs, showcasing successful examples that increase trust in the methods and thus, the risk assessors’ confidence in using these methods. Among other things, the article highlights the importance of considering human health risk assessors’ needs and prerequisites to foster bottom-up coordinated efforts and to ensure the success of top-down legal and institutional change to incorporate NAMs in regulatory risk assessment.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Environment International
Environment International 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
21.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
734
审稿时长
2.8 months
期刊介绍: Environmental Health publishes manuscripts focusing on critical aspects of environmental and occupational medicine, including studies in toxicology and epidemiology, to illuminate the human health implications of exposure to environmental hazards. The journal adopts an open-access model and practices open peer review. It caters to scientists and practitioners across all environmental science domains, directly or indirectly impacting human health and well-being. With a commitment to enhancing the prevention of environmentally-related health risks, Environmental Health serves as a public health journal for the community and scientists engaged in matters of public health significance concerning the environment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信