Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 351
Filtrar
5.
Am J Public Health ; 112(1): 124-134, 2022 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34936388

RESUMO

Children's environmental health (CEH) has a 25-year history at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), during which the agency has advanced CEH through research, policy, and programs that address children's special vulnerability to environmental harm. However, the Trump administration took many actions that weakened efforts to improve CEH. The actions included downgrading or ignoring CEH concerns in decision-making, defunding research, sidelining the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and rescinding regulations that were written in part to protect children. To improve CEH, federal environmental statutes should be reviewed to ensure they are sufficiently protective. The administrator should ensure the EPA's children's health agenda encompasses the most important current challenges and that there is accountability for improvement. Guidance documents should be reviewed and updated to be protective of CEH and the federal lead strategy refocused on primary prevention. The Office of Children's Health Protection's historically low funding and staffing should be remedied. Finally, the EPA should update CEH data systems, reinvigorate the role of the Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee, and restore funding for CEH research that is aligned with environmental justice and regulatory decision-making needs. (Am J Public Health. 2022;112(1):124-134. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2021.306537).


Assuntos
Saúde da Criança/história , Saúde da Criança/legislação & jurisprudência , Saúde Ambiental/história , Saúde Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/história , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , Regulamentação Governamental , História do Século XX , História do Século XXI , Humanos , Política , Estados Unidos
6.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol ; 433: 115779, 2021 12 15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34737146

RESUMO

The Delaney Clause of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act became law in 1958 because of concerns that potentially harmful chemicals were finding their way into foods and causing cancer. It states, "[n]o additive shall be deemed to be safe if it is found to induce cancer when ingested by man or animal, or if it is found, after tests which are appropriate for the evaluation of the safety of food additives, to induce cancer in man or animal." The United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA, prior to implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act) were charged with implementing this clause. Over 60 years, advances in cancer research have elucidated how chemicals induce cancer. Significant advancements in analytical methodologies have allowed for accurate and progressively lower detection limits, resulting in detection of trace amounts. Based on current scientific knowledge, there is a need to revisit the Delaney Clause's utility. The lack of scientific merit to the Delaney Clause was very apparent when recently the US FDA had to revoke the food additive approvals of 6 synthetic flavoring substances because high dose testing in animals demonstrated a carcinogenic response. However, US FDA determined that these 6 synthetic flavoring substances do not pose a risk to public health under the conditions of intended use. The 7th substance, styrene, was de-listed because it is no longer used by industry. The scientific community is committed to improving public health by promoting relevant science in risk assessment and regulatory decision making, and this was discussed in scientific sessions at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) 2020 Annual Meeting and the Society of Toxicology (SOT) 2019 Annual Meeting. Expert presentations included advances in cancer research since the 1950s; the role of the Delaney Clause in the current regulatory paradigm with a focus on synthetic food additives; and the impact of the clause on scientific advances and regulatory decision making. The sessions concluded with panel discussions on making the clause more relevant based on 21st-century science.


Assuntos
Testes de Carcinogenicidade , Carcinógenos/toxicidade , Aditivos Alimentares/toxicidade , Legislação sobre Alimentos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislação & jurisprudência , Animais , Exposição Dietética/efeitos adversos , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Regulamentação Governamental , Humanos , Formulação de Políticas , Medição de Risco , Estados Unidos
14.
Mol Cell Endocrinol ; 518: 110927, 2020 12 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32645345

RESUMO

Breast cancer risk from pesticides may be missed if effects on mammary gland are not assessed in toxicology studies required for registration. Using US EPA's registration documents, we identified pesticides that cause mammary tumors or alter development, and evaluated how those findings were considered in risk assessment. Of 28 pesticides that produced mammary tumors, EPA's risk assessment acknowledges those tumors for nine and dismisses the remaining cases. For five pesticides that alter mammary gland development, the implications for lactation and cancer risk are not assessed. Many of the mammary-active pesticides activate pathways related to endocrine disruption: altering steroid synthesis in H295R cells, activating nuclear receptors, or affecting xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes. Clearer guidelines based on breast cancer biology would strengthen assessment of mammary gland effects, including sensitive histology and hormone measures. Potential cancer risks from several common pesticides should be re-evaluated, including: malathion, triclopyr, atrazine, propylene oxide, and 3-iodo-2-propynyl butylcarbamate (IPBC).


Assuntos
Glândulas Mamárias Animais/efeitos dos fármacos , Glândulas Mamárias Humanas/efeitos dos fármacos , Praguicidas/toxicidade , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Testes de Toxicidade/normas , Animais , Neoplasias da Mama/induzido quimicamente , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Disruptores Endócrinos/farmacologia , Feminino , Regulamentação Governamental , Humanos , Medição de Risco , Testes de Toxicidade/métodos , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/normas
18.
Environ Health ; 19(1): 16, 2020 02 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32041625

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, or FQPA, required the Environmental Protection Agency to set allowable levels for pesticides in a way that would "ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue." The act stipulated that an additional tenfold margin of safety for pesticide risk assessments shall be applied to account for pre- and postnatal toxicity and for any data gaps regarding pesticide exposure and toxicity, unless there are reliable data to demonstrate that a different margin would be safe for infants and children. DISCUSSION: To examine the implementation of the FQPA-mandated additional margin of safety, this analysis reviews 59 pesticide risk assessments published by the EPA between 2011 and 2019. The list includes 12 pesticides used in the largest amount in the U.S.; a group of 35 pesticides detected on fruits and vegetables; and 12 organophosphate pesticides. For the non-organophosphate pesticides reviewed here, the EPA applied an additional children's health safety factor in 13% of acute dietary exposure scenarios and 12% of chronic dietary exposure scenarios. For incidental oral, dermal and inhalation exposures, additional FQPA factors were applied for 15, 31, and 41%, respectively, of the non-organophosphate pesticides, primarily due to data uncertainties. For the organophosphate pesticides as a group, a tenfold children's health safety factor was proposed in 2015. Notably, in 2017 that decision was reversed for chlorpyrifos. CONCLUSIONS: For the majority of pesticides reviewed in this study, the EPA did not apply an additional FQPA safety factor, missing an opportunity to fully use the FQPA authority for protecting children's health.


Assuntos
Saúde da Criança/legislação & jurisprudência , Exposição Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Qualidade dos Alimentos , Praguicidas/efeitos adversos , Medição de Risco/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , Adolescente , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Exposição Ambiental/efeitos adversos , Poluentes Ambientais/efeitos adversos , Humanos , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA