Assuntos
Água Potável , United States Environmental Protection Agency , Poluentes Químicos da Água , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , Água Potável/análise , Água Potável/normas , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Poluentes Químicos da Água/análise , Fluorocarbonos/toxicidade , Fluorocarbonos/análise , Fluorocarbonos/efeitos adversos , Regulamentação GovernamentalAssuntos
Asbestos Serpentinas , United States Environmental Protection Agency , Asbestos Serpentinas/efeitos adversos , Humanos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos , Mesotelioma/induzido quimicamente , Exposição Ocupacional/legislação & jurisprudência , Exposição Ocupacional/efeitos adversos , Exposição Ocupacional/prevenção & controle , Neoplasias PulmonaresAssuntos
Política Ambiental , Aquecimento Global , Decisões da Suprema Corte , United States Environmental Protection Agency , Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Aquecimento Global/legislação & jurisprudência , Aquecimento Global/prevenção & controle , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudênciaRESUMO
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 UnidosRESUMO
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 UnidosAssuntos
Governo Federal , Política , Pesquisadores , Ciência/legislação & jurisprudência , Comitês Consultivos , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./legislação & jurisprudência , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./normas , Mudança Climática , Ciência/normas , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/normasAssuntos
Aedes/genética , Estudos de Avaliação como Assunto , Controle de Mosquitos/métodos , Mosquitos Vetores/genética , Aedes/virologia , Animais , Dengue/epidemiologia , Dengue/prevenção & controle , Dengue/transmissão , Dengue/virologia , Feminino , Florida/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Controle de Mosquitos/legislação & jurisprudência , Mosquitos Vetores/virologia , Opinião Pública , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , Infecção por Zika virus/epidemiologia , Infecção por Zika virus/prevenção & controle , Infecção por Zika virus/transmissão , Infecção por Zika virus/virologiaAssuntos
Política , Pesquisadores , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organização & administração , Política Ambiental/economia , Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Moral , Confiança , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/economiaAssuntos
Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Federal , Liderança , Política , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organização & administração , United States Environmental Protection Agency/normas , Animais , Humanos , Saúde Pública/normas , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/tendênciasAssuntos
Governo Federal , Aquecimento Global/legislação & jurisprudência , Aquecimento Global/prevenção & controle , Energia Renovável/legislação & jurisprudência , Eletricidade , Efeito Estufa/economia , Efeito Estufa/legislação & jurisprudência , Paris , Energia Renovável/economia , Impostos/economia , Impostos/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudênciaAssuntos
COVID-19/epidemiologia , Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Governo Federal , Política , Saúde Pública/legislação & jurisprudência , Ciência/legislação & jurisprudência , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./ética , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./legislação & jurisprudência , China , Democracia , Emigração e Imigração/legislação & jurisprudência , Pessoal Profissional Estrangeiro/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Pandemias , Pesquisadores/legislação & jurisprudência , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos/epidemiologia , United States Environmental Protection Agency/ética , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Food and Drug Administration/ética , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislação & jurisprudênciaRESUMO
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/normasAssuntos
Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Formulação de Políticas , Ciência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , United States Environmental Protection Agency/organização & administração , Poluição do Ar/legislação & jurisprudência , Poluição do Ar/prevenção & controle , Comércio/legislação & jurisprudência , Comércio/normas , Análise Custo-Benefício , Liderança , Mercúrio/análise , Material Particulado/análise , Saúde Pública/legislação & jurisprudência , Pesquisadores , Ciência/normas , Estados Unidos , Emissões de Veículos/legislação & jurisprudênciaAssuntos
Educação de Pós-Graduação , Política Ambiental/legislação & jurisprudência , Política , Pesquisadores/educação , Pesquisadores/psicologia , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislação & jurisprudência , Criatividade , Ecologia , Educação de Pós-Graduação/normas , Liberdade , Estados Unidos , Poluição da Água/análise , Poluição da Água/prevenção & controleRESUMO
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.