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 ,&nbsp;Nicolas Roth ,&nbsp;Tom Jansen ,&nbsp;Laura Holden ,&nbsp;Aleksandra Čavoški ,&nbsp;Emma Di Consiglio ,&nbsp;Ingrid Hauzenberger ,&nbsp;Robert Lee ,&nbsp;Enrico Mombelli ,&nbsp;Olga Tcheremenskaia ,&nbsp;Lina Wendt-Rasch ,&nbsp;Martin F. Wilks","doi":"10.1016/j.envint.2025.109279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":308,"journal":{"name":"Environment International","volume":"196 ","pages":"Article 109279"},"PeriodicalIF":10.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environment International","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412025000303","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.
欧洲监管框架中人类健康风险评估的新方法:监管接受和使用的现状、障碍和驱动因素
对人类健康进行化学品风险评估的传统方法不断受到其局限性的挑战,例如有效性问题、使用无动物方法的社会压力以及资源限制。新方法方法(NAMs)被认为是实现化学品风险评估实践现代化的有前途的途径,但其在实践中的实施进展缓慢。本文旨在调查人类健康风险评估人员对不同监管框架中接受和使用NAMs的现状、障碍和驱动因素的看法。采用混合方法设计:定性访谈(N = 19)和对来自工业界、监管机构/机构和学术界的人类健康风险评估人员进行在线调查(N = 222)。结果显示了对特定NAMs的熟悉度和使用的异质性(例如,众所周知和使用的QSARs与很少使用的组学方法),风险评估者的背景(例如,行业与监管机构和机构与学术界)和应用环境(例如,筛选/优先排序与危害识别/表征)。所确定的障碍和驱动因素为未来在监管风险评估中整合和接受NAMs提供了指导。例如,指导文件可以促进NAMs的使用,展示成功的例子,增加对方法的信任,从而增加风险评估人员使用这些方法的信心。除其他事项外,本文强调必须考虑人类健康风险评估人员的需求和先决条件,以促进自下而上的协调努力,并确保自上而下的法律和体制变革取得成功,将NAMs纳入监管风险评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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