The article focuses on flaws in the actual approaches of exposure to a chemical of recipient organisms. It demonstrates the excessive use of arguments based on adverse effects and underlines the necessity to take adaptive effects seriously. Regulators are invited to rethink their inclination to the `When in doubt, keep it out.' precautionary approach, with results in counter-productive and costly regulations. The authors are clear about the necessity to include hormesis, in the form of a toxicological insignificant exposure (TIE) level, related to the concentration, as a regulatory translation of adaptive effects. This inclusion might well be the `brake' for the looming `collision' with reality of the actual linear toxicological models. This analysis includes the advice to EPA, not to follow the `witch hunt of synthetic chemicals' as embodied in the EU REACH program.Human & Experimental Toxicology (2007) 26,855 —873
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, An examination of EPA risk assessment principles and practices. Staff Paper Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by members of the Risk Assessment Task Force, 2004, EPA/100/B-04/001 (added italics).
2.
Pieterman R., Hanekamp JCThe cautious society? An essay on the rise of the precautionary culture, HAN , 2002.
3.
Hanekamp JC, Vera-Navas G., Verstegen SWThe historical roots of precautionary thinking: the cultural ecological critique and `The Limits to Growth'. J Risk Res2004 ; 53(3): 295—310.
4.
Stenmark M.How to relate science and religion. A multidimensional model. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2004.
5.
Jovarsky D.The Lysenko affair. The University of Chicago Press , 1970.
6.
Kuhn TSThe structure of scientific revolutions. The University of Chicago Press, 1970.
7.
Weber M.On the methodology of the social sciences. Free Press, 1949.
8.
Lakatos I.Mathematics, science and epistemology: Philosophical papers. Volume 2. Worall J, Currie G. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, 1978, p. 258; italics in the original.
9.
See for initial work on the sociology of knowledge: Fleck, L.Entstehung und Entwicklung einer wissenschaftlichen Tatsache: Einführung in die Lehre vom Denkstil und Denkkollektiv. Benno Schwabe & C.1935. [This rather unknown book has been given attention by Tomas Kuhn, who himself became famous for his work on the philosophy of science. Fleck's work is translated: Fleck L. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. The University of Chicago Press, 1979.]
10.
Ulrich B.Risikogesellschaft: Auf dem Weg in eine andere moderne. Suhrkamp, 1986.
11.
See also: Giddens, A.The consequences of modernity. Polity Press, 1990.
12.
Fukuyama F.Trust: The social virtues and the creation of prosperity. Hamish Hamilton, 1995 ; Elchardus M. , Smits W.Anatomie en oorzaken van het wantrouwen. VUB Press, 2002. (Anatomy and causes of distrust.); See also on the issue of risk: Flynn J., Slovic P., Kunreuther H.Risk, media and stigma. understanding public challenge to modern science and technology. Earthscan Publications Ltd, 2001; See for an insightful article on knowledge and trust: Sjöberg L.Limits of knowledge and the limited importance of trust. Risk Anal2001; 21(1): 189—98.
13.
Unger RMKnowledge & politics. The Free Press, 1975; Unger RMLaw in modern society: toward a criticism of social theory. The Free Press, 1976 .
14.
Douglas M., Wildavsky A.Risk and culture. An essay on the selection of technological and environmental dangers. BerkelySAGE Publications, 1982.
15.
Dahrendorf R.Class and class conflict in industrial society , Stanford University Press, 1959.
16.
Friedman LMA history of American law. Touchstone, 1986.
17.
Simon J.The state of humanity. Blackwell Publisher Limited , 1995.
18.
Furedi F.Culture of fear. Risk-taking and the morality of low expectation. Continuum, 2002.
19.
Jacoby R.The end of utopia. Politics and culture in an age of apathy. Basic Books, 1999.
20.
Ellman LM, Sunstein CRHormesis, the precautionary principle, and legal regulation. Belle Newsletter2004; 12(2): 2—12.
21.
Cross FBParadoxical perils of the precautionary principle. Washington Lee Law Rev1996; 53: 851—925; Stone CDIs there a precautionary principle?Environ Law Reporter , 2001; 10789—99; Bergkamp L.Understanding the precautionary principle, Parts I and II. Environmen Liability, 2002 ; pp. 18—30 and pp. 67—82; Wiener JB, Rogers MDComparing precaution in the United States and Europe. J Risk Res2002; 5(4), 317—49; Christoforou T.The regulation of genetically modified organisms in the European Union: the interplay of science, law and politics. Common Mkt Law Rev2004; 41, 637—709; Da Cruz Vilaça, JLThe precautionary principle in EC law. Euro Pub Law2004; 10(2): 369—406.
22.
See e.g., Goklany IMThe precautionary principle. A critical appraisal of environmental risk assessment. Cato Institute, 2001; Morris J. (ed) Rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Butterworth-Heinemann , 2000.
23.
See e.g. Niet alle Risico's zijn Gelijk.Dutch Health Council, report 1995/06. (All risks are not equal.) Risico, meer dan een getal.Handreiking voor een verdere ontwikkeling van de risicobenadering in het milieubeleid. Dutch Health Council, report 1996/03. (Risk, more than a number. Directive for a further development of a risk approach of environmental policies.)
24.
Graham JDDecision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle. J Risk Res2001; 4(2): 127—41.
25.
Wiener JBPrecaution in a multi-risk world. Duke Law School Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 23, 2001.
26.
Popper KRThe open society and its enemies. Volume I & II. Princeton University Press, 1971; Popper KRThe poverty of historicism. (reprint), Routledge Classics, 2002.
27.
Wildavsky A.Trial and error versus trial without error . In: rethinking risk and the precautionary principle. Morris J. (ed.), Butterworth-Heinemann , 2000, p. 22—45; Graham JDDecision-analytic refinements of the precautionary principle. J Risk Res2001 ; 4(2): 127—41; Marchant GEThe precautionary principle: an `unprincipled' approach to biotechnology regulation . J Risk Res2001; 4(2): 143—57.
28.
Wildavsky A.But is it true? A citizen's guide to environmental health and safety issues , third edition, Harvard University Press, 1997.
29.
Tengs TO, Adams ME, Pliskin JS, Safran DG, Siegel JE, Weinstein MC, Graham JDFive-hundred life-saving interventions and their cost-effectiveness . Risk Anal1995; 15(3): 369—89; Keeney RLEstimating fatalities induced by the economic costs of regulation. J Risk Uncertainty1997 ; 14: 5—23; Gerdtham UG, Johannesson M.Do life-saving regulations save lives?J Risk Uncertainty, 2002; 24(3): 231—49; Kip Viscusi W., Aldy JEThe value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertainty2003; 27(1): 5—76; Morrall III JFSaving lives: A review of the record. J Risk Uncertainty2003; 27(3): 221—37.
30.
Feinstein JSThe relationship between socioeconomic status and health: A review of the literature. Milbank Q1993; 71: 279—321; Mackenbach JPOngezonde verschillen. Over sociale stratificatie en gezondheid in Nederland. (Unhealthy differences. Social stratification and health in the Netherlands.)Van Gorcum, 1994; Wagstaff A., Van Doorslaer E.Income inequality and health: What does the literature tell us?Ann Rev Pub Health2000; 21: 543—67.
31.
Sunstein CSBeyond the precautionary principle. John M. Olin Law & Economics Working Paper No. 149 (2nd series), the Law School, University of Chicago, 2002; Rip A.Co-evolution of science, technology and society. An Expert Review for the Bundesministerium Bildung und Forschung's Förderinitiative Politik, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft (Science Policy Studies), as managed by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2002.
32.
DoumaWTh.The precautionary principle. Its application in international, European and Dutch law. PhD thesis, University of Groningen, 2003.
33.
See for the issue of precautionary choice in a cultural and historical perspective: note 2; See also: Turvey CG, Mojduszka EMThe precautionary principle and the law of unintended consequences. Food Policy2005; 30: 145—61.
34.
Power M.The risk management of everything. Rethinking the politics of uncertainty. Demos, 2004.
35.
Ames B., Gold LSParacelsus to parascience: the environmental cancer distraction. Mutat Res2000; 447: 3—13; Bergkamp L., Hanekamp JCThe draft REACH regime: Costs and benefits of precautionary chemical regulation . Environ Liability2003; 5: 167—80.
36.
Rip A.Risicocontroverses en verwevenheid van wetenschap en politiek. In: Kennis en methode, 1992; 16/1: 63—80. (Risk controversies and the intertwining of science and politics.); Jasanoff S.The songlines of risk. Environ Values1999; 8(2): 135—52; Pieterman R.Culture in the risk society. An essay on the rise of a precautionary culture. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie2001; 22(2): 145—68.
37.
Gellner E.Postmodernism, reason and religion. Routledge, 1992; Gellner E.Reason and culture. The historic role of rationality and rationalism. Blackwell Publishers, 1992.
38.
Westra L.Post-normal science, the precautionary principle and the ethics of integrity . Found Sci1997; 2: 237—62; Funtowicz S., Ravetz J.Post-normal science. Environmental policy under conditions of complexity . See http://www.jvds.nl/pns/pns.htm (last visited on the 3rd of January, 2006).
39.
Searle JRThe construction of social reality. The Free Press , 1999; Hacking , I.The social construction of what?Harvard University Press, 1999.
40.
Raffensperger C., Tickner J.Protecting public health and the environment: implementing the precautionary principle. Island Press , 1999.
41.
Page T.A generic view of toxic chemicals and similar risks. Ecol Law Q1978; 7: 207—44.
42.
Axelrod et al. for instance maintain on several grounds that hormesis is not the appropriate toxicological model to assess risks of chemicals exposure. However, their rejection of hormesis as a viable risk assessment tool is mainly based on the assumption that a public-health-protective approach is best served with the conservative classical toxicological approaches. Their disregard for the negative external costs as a result of the error of overregulation —for one — is typical for precautionary culture; Axelrod D., Burns K., Davis D., Von Larebeke N.`Hormesis'—An inappropriate extrapolation from the specific to the universal. Int J Environ Health2004; 10: 335—9.
43.
See e.g. on overregulation: Hanekamp JC, Frapporti G., Olieman K.Chloramphenicol, food safety and precautionary thinking in Europe. Environ Liability2003; 6: 209—21.
44.
Griffiths C.Economic implications of hormesis in policy making. Belle Newsletter2004; 12(1): 12—14 (added italics).
45.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAToxicology rethinks its central belief. Hormesis demands a reappraisal of the way risks are assessed. Nature , 2003; 421: 691—92.
46.
Calabrese EJ , Baldwin LAHormesis: A generalizable and unifying hypothesis . Crit Rev Toxicol2001; 31(4&5): 353—424.
47.
Rozman KK, Doul J.Scientific foundations of hormesis. Part 2. Maturation, strengths, limitations, and possible applications in toxicology, pharmacology, and epidemiology. Crit Rev Toxicol2003; 33(3&4); 451—62.
48.
Kaiser J.Sipping from a poisoned chalice. Science, 2003; 320: 376—78.
49.
Calabrese EJThe future of hormesis: Where do we go from here?Crit Rev Toxicol2001; 31(4&5): 637—48.
50.
Mokyr J.The gifts of Athena. Historical origins of the knowledge economy. Princeton University Press, 2002.
51.
Parsons PAMetabolic efficiency in response to environmental agents predicts hormesis and invalidates the linear no-threshold premise: Ionizing radiation as a case study. Crit Rev Toxicol2003; 33(3&4): 443—49; Liu S-Z.On radiation hormesis expressed in the immune system. Crit Rev Toxicol2003; 33(3&4): 431—41; Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LAInorganics and hormesis . Crit Rev Toxicol2003; 33(3&4): 215—304, 355—405, 407—424; Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LAThe hormetic dose-response model is more common than the threshold model in toxicology. Toxicol Sci2003; 71: 246—50; Chen WL, Luan YC, Shieh MC, Chen ST, Kung HT, Soong KL, Yeh YC, Chou TS, Mong SH, Wu JT, Sun CP, Deng WP, Wu MF, Shen MLIs chronic radiation an effective prophylaxis against cancer?J Am Phys Surg2004; 9(1): 6—10; See also Calabrese EJ, Baldwin LAChemotherapeutics and hormesis. Crit Rev Toxicol2003; 33(3&4): 305—53.
52.
Wickramashighe RH, Villee CAEarly role during chemical evolution for cytochrome P450 in oxygen detoxification. Nature, 1975 ; 256: 509—10.
53.
Bast A.Is formation of reactive oxygen by cytochrome P-450 perilous and predictable?Trends Pharmacol Sci1986; 7: 266—70.
54.
Repine JE, Bast A., Lankhorst ILM.Oxidative stress in COPD. Am J Respir Crit Care Med1997; 156: 341—58 (on behalf of the international oxidative stress study club).
55.
Den Hartog GJM , Haenen GRMM , Boven E., Van der Vijgh WJF , Bast A.Lecithinized copper, zinc-superoxide dismutase as a protector against doxorubicininduced cardiotoxicity in mice. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol2004; 194: 180—88.
56.
Yim MB, Chock PB, Stadtman ERCopper zinc superoxide dismutase catalyzes hydroxyl radical production from hydrogen peroxide. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 1990; 87: 5006—10.
57.
Den Hartog GJM , Haenen Grmm, Vegt E., Van der Vijgh WJF, Bast A.Superoxide dismutase: The balance between prevention and induction of oxidative damage. Chem-Biol Inter2003; 145: 33—9.
58.
Van AckerSABE , Van den BergD-J , TrompMNJL , Griffioen DH , Van BennekomWP , Van der Vijgh WJF , BastA . Structural aspects of antioxidant activity of flavonoids. Free Rad Biol Med1996; 20: 331—42.
59.
Boots AW, Kubben N., Haenen GRMM, Bast A.Oxidized quercetin reacts with thiols rather than with ascorbate: implication for quercetin supplementation. Biochem Biophys Res Commun2003; 308: 560—65.
60.
Finkel T., Holbrook NJOxidants, oxidative stress and the biology of ageing. Nature2000; 408: 239—47.
61.
Stebbing ARD.A mechanism for hormesis — a problem in the wrong discipline. Crit Rev Toxicol2003 ; 33(3&4): 463—67.
62.
REACH's justification creates a contradiction: government failure calls in the view of the European Commission for more government action.
63.
Carson R.Silent spring. Penguin, 1962 .
64.
The European Chemical Bureau assessed the risk issues of phthalates rather differently (namely absent): European union risk assessment report, 1,2-benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich and di- `isononyl` phthalate (DINP). 2003, Volume 35, EUR 20784EN.
65.
Doll R., Peto R.The causes of cancer: Quantitative estimates of avoidable risks of cancer in the United States today. J Natl Cancer Institute1981; 66: 1192—308; Ames BN, Gold LS, Shigenaga MKCancer prevention, rodent high-dose cancer tests and risk assessment. Risk Anal1996; 16: 613—17; Ames BN, Gold LSEnvironmental pollution, pesticides, and the prevention of cancer: Misconceptions . FASEB J1997; 11: 1041—52.
66.
Marchant GE, Mossman KLArbitrary and capricous. The precautionary principle in the European Union Courts. The AEI Press, 2004.
67.
Council Regulation (EEC)No. 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 laying down a Community procedure to set up maximum residue limits of veterinary medicinal products in foodstuffs of animal origin , Official JL224, 1990, 18 August, 1—8.
68.
IPCS-INCHEM (Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organizations), webpage http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v23je02.htm (last visited on the 3rd of January 2006).
69.
IPCS-INCHEM (Chemical Safety Information from Intergovernmental Organisations), webpage http://www.inchem.org/documents/jecfa/jecmono/v33je03.htm (last visited on the 3rd of January 2006).
70.
See on the risks of ophthalmic use of CAP: Laporte JR, Vidal X., Ballarin E., Ibanez L.Possible association between ocular chloramphenicol and aplastic anaemia — the absolute risk is very low. Brit J Clin Pharmacol1998; 46(2): 181—84.
71.
Janssen PAH , Baars AJ, Pieters MNAdvies met betrekking tot chlooramfenicol in garnalen. RIVM/CSR, Bilthoven, 2001 . (Recommendations on chloramphenicol in shrimp.)
72.
Hanekamp JC , Wijnands RJAnalytical technology, risk analysis and residues of veterinary substances: A précis and a proposal for coherent and logical clinical residue legislation. Joint FAO-WHO Technical Workshop on residues of veterinary drugs without ADI/MRL ( Bangkok, Thailand 24—26 August 2004), 2004, working document; See also Hanekamp JC, Kwakman J.Beyond zero tolerance: a new approach to food safety and residues of pharmacological active substances in foodstuffs of animal origin. Environ Liability 2004; 1: 33—9; See also: Veldman M.Fantasy, the bomb and the greening of Britain. Romantic protest, 1945—1980 . Cambridge University Press, 1994.
73.
Calabrese EJHormesis—basic, generalizable, central to toxicology and a method to improve the risk-assessment process. Intl J Occup EnvironHealth2004; 10: 466—67.
74.
Barnard RCA new approach to risk assessment integrating scientific evaluation and economic assessment of costs and benefits. Regulat ToxicolPharmacol1996; 24: 121—5.
75.
Cross FBLegal implications of hormesis. Hum Exp Toxicol2001; 20(3): 156—8.
76.
Wiener JBHormesis and the radical moderation of law. Hum Exp Toxicol2001; 20(3): 162—4.
77.
Cramer GM, Ford RA, Hall RLEstimation of toxic hazard — a decision tree approach. Food Cosmet Toxicol1978; 16: 255—76.
78.
Rulis AMThreshold of regulation: Options for handling minimal risk situations . In: Food safety assessment. ACS Symposium Series 1992 ; 484: 132—9; Carcinogens and anticarcinogens in the human diet. A comparison of naturally occurring and synthetic substances . Committee on Comparative Toxicity of Naturally Occurring Carcinogens, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences, National Research Council, National Academy Press , 1996.
79.
Kroes R., Renwick AG, Cheeseman M., Kleiner J., Mangelsdorf I., Piersma A., Schilter B., Schlatter J., Van Schothorst F., Vos JG, Würtzen G.Structure-based thresholds of toxicological concern (TTC): guidance for application to substances present at low levels in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol2004; 42: 65—83.
80.
Kroes R., Galli C., Munro B., Schilter B., Tran L-A., Walker R., Würtzen G.Threshold of toxicological concern for chemical substances present in the diet: A practical tool for assessing the need for toxicity testing . Food Chem Toxicol2000; 38: 255—312.
81.
See e.g.: Calabrese EJ, Cook RRHormesis: how it could affect the risk assessment process. Hum Exp Toxicol2005 ; 24: 265—70.
