ABSTRACT
Many government agencies and expert groups have estimated a dose-rate of perfluorooctanoate (PFOA) that would protect human health. Most of these evaluations are based on the same studies (whether of humans, laboratory animals, or both), and all note various uncertainties in our existing knowledge. Nonetheless, the values of these various, estimated, safe-doses vary widely, with some being more than 100,000 fold different. This sort of discrepancy invites scrutiny and explanation. Otherwise what is the lay public to make of this disparity? The Steering Committee of the Alliance for Risk Assessment (2022) called for scientists interested in attempting to understand and narrow these disparities. An advisory committee of nine scientists from four countries was selected from nominations received, and a subsequent invitation to scientists internationally led to the formation of three technical teams (for a total of 24 scientists from 8 countries). The teams reviewed relevant information and independently developed ranges for estimated PFOA safe doses. All three teams determined that the available epidemiologic information could not form a reliable basis for a PFOA safe dose-assessment in the absence of mechanistic data that are relevant for humans at serum concentrations seen in the general population. Based instead on dose-response data from five studies of PFOA-exposed laboratory animals, we estimated that PFOA dose-rates 10-70 ng/kg-day are protective of human health.