Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

Environmental Health

Review

David Gee¹  Simona A. Bălan²  Vincent James Cogliano³  Daniele Mandrioli⁴  Marike Kolossa-Gehring⁵  Susan L. Norris⁶  Mark A. Mitchell⁷  Kurt Straif⁸  Kristi Pullen Fedinick⁹  Jennifer B. Sass^1,10  Linda Birnbaum^1,11  Courtney Cooper^1,12  Nicholas Chartres^1,12  Theo Vermeire^1,13  Christopher J. Portier^1,14  Roy M. Harrison^1,15 

[1] Brunel University, London, UK;California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Berkeley, CA, USA;University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA;California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, CA, USA;Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy;Department of Environmental Hygiene, Section Toxicology, Health Related Environmental Monitoring, German Federal Environmental Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany;Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA;George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA;Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Hartford, CT, USA;ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain;Boston College, Newton, MA, USA;Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, USA;Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, USA;George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA;Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA;Program On Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, 94143, San Francisco, CA, USA;Retired, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Utrecht, The Netherlands;Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA;Department of Toxicogenomics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands;CJP Consulting, Seattle, WA, USA;School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK;Department of Environmental Sciences/Centre of Excellence in Environmental Studies, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia;

关键词: Conflicts of interest;    Industry sponsorship;    Environmental justice;    Cumulative impacts;    Non-chemical stressors;    Precautionary principle;    Risk of bias;    Systematic review;    Transparency;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12940-022-00926-z

 received in 2022-04-15, accepted in 2022-10-20,  发布年份 2022

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundIn February 2021, over one hundred scientists and policy experts participated in a web-based Workshop to discuss the ways that divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties are used to delay timely protection of human health and the environment from exposures to hazardous agents. The Workshop arose from a previous workshop organized by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2008 and which also drew on case studies from the EEA reports on ‘Late Lessons from Early Warnings’ (2001, 2013). These reports documented dozens of hazardous agents including many chemicals, for which risk reduction measures were delayed for decades after scientists and others had issued early and later warnings about the harm likely to be caused by those agents.ResultsWorkshop participants used recent case studies including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Extremely Low Frequency – Electrical Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF fields), glyphosate, and Bisphenol A (BPA) to explore myriad reasons for divergent outcomes of evaluations, which has led to delayed and inadequate protection of the public’s health. Strategies to overcome these barriers must, therefore, at a minimum include approaches that 1) Make better use of existing data and information, 2) Ensure timeliness, 3) Increase transparency, consistency and minimize bias in evidence evaluations, and 4) Minimize the influence of financial conflicts of interest.ConclusionThe recommendations should enhance the production of “actionable evidence,” that is, reliable evaluations of the scientific evidence to support timely actions to protect health and environments from exposures to hazardous agents. The recommendations are applicable to policy and regulatory settings at the local, state, federal and international levels.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2022

【 图 表 】

12982_2022_119_Article_IEq160.gif