Loading…
Does EU legislation allow the use of the Benchmark dose (BMD) approach for risk assessment?
•EFSA scientific opinion states Benchmark dose (BMD) approach is preferred.•EU regulatory frameworks for chemicals were scanned for obstacles.•EU legislation for chemicals safety does not preclude use of BMD approach. Hazard characterisation is largely based on an approach of (statistically) compari...
Saved in:
Published in: | Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 2013-11, Vol.67 (2), p.182-188 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Summary: | •EFSA scientific opinion states Benchmark dose (BMD) approach is preferred.•EU regulatory frameworks for chemicals were scanned for obstacles.•EU legislation for chemicals safety does not preclude use of BMD approach.
Hazard characterisation is largely based on an approach of (statistically) comparing dose groups with the controls in order to derive points of departure such as no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs). This approach suggests the absence of any relevant effect at the NOAEL. The NOAEL approach has been debated for decades. A recent Scientific Opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach should be preferred over the NOAEL approach for deriving human (health-based) limit or guidance values. Nonetheless, the BMD approach is used infrequently within European regulatory frameworks. The reason for this may lie in legislation or guidelines requiring the use of the NOAEL approach. In this context, various EU regulatory frameworks were examined on such demands. Interestingly, no single legislation was identified containing statutory requirements in conflict with the use of the BMD approach. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0273-2300 1096-0295 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.07.005 |