Addressing systemic problems with exposure assessments to protect the public’s health

Laura N. Vandenberg*, Swati D. G. Rayasam, Daniel A. Axelrad, Deborah H. Bennett, Phil Brown, Courtney C. Carignan, Nicholas Chartres, Miriam L. Diamond, Rashmi Joglekar, Bhavna Shamasunder, Kristin Shrader‑Frechette, Wilma A. Subra, Ken Zarker and Tracey J. Woodruff

Background

Understanding, characterizing, and quantifying human exposures to environmental chemicals is critical to protect public health. Exposure assessments are key to determining risks to the general population and for specific subpopulations given that exposures differ between groups. Exposure data are also important for understanding where interventions, including public policies, should be targeted and the extent to which interventions have been successful. In this review, we aim to show how inadequacies in exposure assessments conducted by polluting industries or regulatory agencies have led to downplaying or disregarding exposure concerns raised by communities; that underestimates of exposure can lead regulatory agencies to conclude that unacceptable risks are, instead, acceptable, allowing pollutants to go unregulated; and that researchers, risk assessors, and policy makers need to better understand the issues that have affected exposure assessments and how appropriate use of exposure data can contribute to health-protective decisions.

Methods

We describe current approaches used by regulatory agencies to estimate human exposures to environmental chemicals, including approaches to address limitations in exposure data. We then illustrate how some exposure assessments have been used to reach flawed conclusions about environmental chemicals and make recommendations for improvements.

Results

Exposure data are important for communities, public health advocates, scientists, policy makers, and other groups to understand the extent of environmental exposures in diverse populations. We identify four areas where exposure assessments need to be improved due to systemic sources of error or uncertainty in exposure assessments and illustrate these areas with examples. These include: (1) an inability of regulatory agencies to keep pace with the increasing number of chemicals registered for use or assess their exposures, as well as complications added by use of ‘confidential business information’ which reduce available exposure data; (2) the failure to keep assessments up-to-date; (3) how inadequate assumptions about human behaviors and co-exposures contribute to underestimates of exposure; and (4) that insufficient models of toxicokinetics similarly affect exposure estimates.

Conclusion

We identified key issues that impact capacity to conduct scientifically robust exposure assessments. These issues must be addressed with scientific or policy approaches to improve estimates of exposure and protect public health.