Incorporating potency into EU classification for carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity.

Although risk assessment, assessing the potential harm of each particular exposure of a substance, is desirable, it is not feasible in many situations. Risk assessment uses a process of hazard identification, hazard characterisation, and exposure assessment as its components. In the absence of risk assessment, the purpose of classification is to give broad guidance (through the label) on the suitability of a chemical in a range of use situations. Hazard classification in the EU is a process involving identification of the hazards of a substance, followed by comparison of those hazards (including degree of hazard) with defined criteria. Classification should therefore give guidance on degree of hazard as well as hazard identification. Potency is the most important indicator of degree of hazard and should therefore be included in classification. This is done for acute lethality and general toxicity by classifying on dose required to cause the effect. The classification in the EU for carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity does not discriminate across the wide range of potencies seen (6 orders of magnitude) for carcinogenicity and for developmental toxicity and fertility. Therefore potency should be included in the classification process. The methodology in the EU guidelines for classification for deriving specific concentration limits is a rigorous process for assigning substances which cause tumours or developmental toxicity and infertility in experimental animals to high, medium or low degree of hazard categories by incorporating potency. Methods are suggested on how the degree of hazard so derived could be used in the EU classification process to improve hazard communication and in downstream risk management.

Carcinogenic potential of formaldehyde in occupational settings: a critical assessment and possible impact on occupational exposure levels.

OBJECTIVES: To review epidemiological studies which led to a change in the classification of formaldehyde by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in 2004 as well as studies published thereafter, with the objective to examine whether occupational exposure levels for formaldehyde should be adapted. METHOD: Cohort and case-control studies investigating the association between occupational exposure to formaldehyde and nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) and reporting estimates of formaldehyde exposure as well as the most recent meta-analyses, published after 1994, were reviewed. RESULTS: Evidence of an association between occupational formaldehyde exposure and NPC appears debatable. Results of the cohort studied by Hauptmann et al. (Am J Epidemiol 159(12):1117-1130, 2004) were key findings in the IARC evaluation. In this study, mortality from NPC was elevated compared with that of the US general population. However, internal comparison analysis using alternative categorization revealed that none of the relative risk for NPC was statistically significantly increased in any category of exposure (Marsh and Youk in Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42(3):275-283, 2005) and re-analyses of the data highlighted the inappropriateness of the exposure assessment used by Hauptmann et al. (Am J Epidemiol 159(12):1117-1130, 2004) and Marsh et al. (Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 47(1):59-67, 2007). Two other cohorts (Coggon et al. in J Natl Cancer Inst 95(21):1608-1615, 2003; Pinkerton et al. in Occup Environ Med 61(3)193-200, 2004) reported no increase in NPC. Two case-control studies brought some evidence of an increased risk of NPC but the assessment of exposure levels was uncertain. DISCUSSION: Human studies fail to raise a convincing conclusion concerning the carcinogenicity of formaldehyde and are not helpful to delineate a possible dose-response relationship. Experimental data indicate that in rats, the carcinogenic activity of formaldehyde is associated with cytotoxic/proliferative mechanisms. Therefore protecting from these effects associated with formaldehyde exposure should be sufficient to protect from its potential carcinogenic effects, if any in humans. CONCLUSION: Current occupational exposure levels to formaldehyde, set to protect against local irritation, should not be adapted.