If cumulative risk assessment is the answer, what is the question?

Cumulative risk refers to the combined threats from exposure via all relevant routes to multiple stressors including biological, chemical, physical, and psychosocial entities. Cumulative risk assessment is a tool for organizing and analyzing information to examine, characterize, and possibly quantify the combined adverse effects on human health or ecologic resources from multiple environmental stressors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a long-term effort to develop future guidelines for cumulative risk assessment, including publication in 2003 of a framework that describes important features of the process and discusses theoretical issues, technical matters, and key definitions. The framework divides the process of cumulative risk assessment into three interrelated phases: a) planning, scoping, and problem formulation; b) analysis; and c) interpretation and risk characterization. It also discusses the additional complexities introduced by attempts to analyze cumulative risks from multiple stressors and describes some of the theoretical approaches that can be used. The development of guidelines for cumulative risk assessment is an essential element in the transition of the U.S. EPA risk assessment methodology from a narrow focus on a single stressor, end point, source, pathway, and exposure route to a broader, more holistic approach involving analysis of combined effects of cumulative exposure to multiple stressors via all relevant sources, pathways, and routes.     

Personal exposure meets risk assessment: a comparison of measured and modeled exposures and risks in an urban community

Human exposure research has consistently shown that, for most volatile organic compounds (VOCs), personal exposures are vastly different from outdoor air concentrations. Therefore, risk estimates based on ambient measurements may over- or underestimate risk, leading to ineffective or inefficient management strategies. In the present study we examine the extent of exposure misclassification and its impact on risk for exposure estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Assessment System for Population Exposure Nationwide (ASPEN) model relative to monitoring results from a community-based exposure assessment conducted in Baltimore, Maryland (USA). This study is the first direct comparison of the ASPEN model (as used by the U.S. EPA for the Cumulative Exposure Project and subsequently the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment) and human exposure data to estimate health risks. A random sampling strategy was used to recruit 33 nonsmoking adult community residents. Passive air sampling badges were used to assess 3-day time-weighted-average personal exposure as well as outdoor and indoor residential concentrations of VOCs for each study participant. In general, personal exposures were greater than indoor VOC concentrations, which were greater than outdoor VOC concentrations. Public health risks due to actual personal exposures were estimated. In comparing measured personal exposures and indoor and outdoor VOC concentrations with ASPEN model estimates for ambient concentrations, our data suggest that ASPEN was reasonably accurate as a surrogate for personal exposures (measured exposures of community residents) for VOCs emitted primarily from mobile sources or VOCs that occur as global "background" source pollutant with no indoor source contributions. Otherwise, the ASPEN model estimates were generally lower than measured personal exposures and the estimated health risks. ASPEN's lower exposures resulted in proportional underestimation of cumulative cancer risk when pollutant exposures were combined to estimate cumulative risk. Median cumulative lifetime cancer risk based on personal exposures was 3-fold greater than estimates based on ASPEN-modeled concentrations. These findings demonstrate the significance of indoor exposure sources and the importance of indoor and/or personal monitoring for accurate assessment of risk. Environmental health policies may not be sufficient in reducing exposures and risks if they are based solely on modeled ambient VOC concentrations. Results from our study underscore the need for a coordinated multimedia approach to exposure assessment for setting public health policy.     

Vulnerability as a function of individual and group resources in cumulative risk assessment

BACKGROUND: The field of risk assessment has focused on protecting the health of individual people or populations of wildlife from single risks, mostly from chemical exposure. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently began to address multiple risks to communities in the "Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment" [EPA/630/P02/001F. Washington DC:Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2003)]. Simultaneously, several reports concluded that some individuals and groups are more vulnerable to environmental risks than the general population. However, vulnerability has received little specific attention in the risk assessment literature. OBJECTIVE: Our objective is to examine the issue of vulnerability in cumulative risk assessment and present a conceptual framework rather than a comprehensive review of the literature. In this article we consider similarities between ecologic and human communities and the factors that make communities vulnerable to environmental risks. DISCUSSION: The literature provides substantial evidence on single environmental factors and simple conditions that increase vulnerability or reduce resilience for humans and ecologic systems. This observation is especially true for individual people and populations of wildlife. Little research directly addresses the topic of vulnerability in cumulative risk situations, especially at the community level. The community level of organization has not been adequately considered as an end point in either human or ecologic risk assessment. Furthermore, current information on human risk does not completely explain the level of response in cumulative risk conditions. Ecologic risk situations are similarly more complex and unpredictable for cases of cumulative risk. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial conditions and responses are the principal missing element for humans. We propose a model for including psychologic and social factors as an integral component of cumulative risk assessment.     

Nutrition can modulate the toxicity of environmental pollutants: implications in risk assessment and human health

Background: The paradigm of human risk assessment includes many variables that must be viewed collectively in order to improve human health and prevent chronic disease. The pathology of chronic diseases is complex, however, and may be influenced by exposure to environmental pollu-tants, a sedentary lifestyle, and poor dietary habits. Much of the emerging evidence suggests that nutrition can modulate the toxicity of environmental pollutants, which may alter human risks associated with toxicant exposures.Objectives: In this commentary, we discuss the basis for recommending that nutrition be considered a critical variable in disease outcomes associated with exposure to environmental pollutants, thus establishing the importance of incorporating nutrition within the context of cumulative risk assessment.Discussion: A convincing body of research indicates that nutrition is a modulator of vulnerability to environmental insults; thus, it is timely to consider nutrition as a vital component of human risk assessment. Nutrition may serve as either an agonist or an antagonist (e.g., high-fat foods or foods rich in antioxidants, respectively) of the health impacts associated with exposure to environmental pollutants. Dietary practices and food choices may help explain the large variability observed in human risk assessment.Conclusion: We recommend that nutrition and dietary practices be incorporated into future environmental research and the development of risk assessment paradigms. Healthful nutrition interventions might be a powerful approach to reduce disease risks associated with many environmental toxic insults and should be considered a variable within the context of cumulative risk assessment and, where appropriate, a potential tool for subsequent risk reduction.     

Aging and the environment: a research framework

The rapid growth in the number of older Americans has many implications for public health, including the need to better understand the risks posed to older adults by environmental exposures. Biologic capacity declines with normal aging; this may be exacerbated in individuals with pre-existing health conditions. This decline can result in compromised pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to environmental exposures encountered in daily activities. In recognition of this issue, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a research agenda on the environment and older adults. The U.S. EPA proposes to apply an environmental public health paradigm to better understand the relationships between external pollution sources --> human exposures --> internal dose --> early biologic effect --> adverse health effects for older adults. The initial challenge will be using information about aging-related changes in exposure, pharmacokinetic, and pharmacodynamic factors to identify susceptible subgroups within the diverse population of older adults. These changes may interact with specific diseases of aging or medications used to treat these conditions. Constructs such as "frailty" may help to capture some of the diversity in the older adult population. Data are needed regarding a) behavior/activity patterns and exposure to the pollutants in the microenvironments of older adults; b) changes in absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion with aging; c) alterations in reserve capacity that alter the body's ability to compensate for the effects of environmental exposures; and d) strategies for effective communication of risk and risk reduction methods to older individuals and communities. This article summarizes the U.S. EPA's development of a framework to address and prioritize the exposure, health effects, and risk communications concerns for the U.S. EPA's evolving research program on older adults as a susceptible subpopulation.     

A cancer risk assessment of inner-city teenagers living in New York City and Los Angeles

BACKGROUND: The Toxics Exposure Assessment Columbia-Harvard (TEACH) project assessed exposures and cancer risks from urban air pollutants in a population of high school teenagers in New York City (NYC) and Los Angeles (LA). Forty-six high school students participated in NYC and 41 in LA, most in two seasons in 1999 and 2000, respectively. METHODS: Personal, indoor home, and outdoor home 48-hr samples of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), aldehydes, particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter < or = 2.5 microm, and particle-bound elements were collected. Individual cancer risks for 13 VOCs and 6 particle-bound elements were calculated from personal concentrations and published cancer unit risks. RESULTS: The median cumulative risk from personal VOC exposures for this sample of NYC high school students was 666 per million and was greater than the risks from ambient exposures by a factor of about 5. In the LA sample, median cancer risks from VOC personal exposures were 486 per million, about a factor of 4 greater than ambient exposure risks. The VOCs with the highest cancer risk included 1,4-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, chloroform, acetaldehyde, and benzene. Of these, benzene had the greatest contributions from outdoor sources. All others had high contributions from indoor sources. The cumulative risks from personal exposures to the elements were an order of magnitude lower than cancer risks from VOC exposures. CONCLUSIONS: Most VOCs had median upper-bound lifetime cancer risks that exceeded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) benchmark of 1 x 10-6 and were generally greater than U.S. EPA modeled estimates, more so for compounds with predominant indoor sources. Chromium, nickel, and arsenic had median personal cancer risks above the U.S. EPA benchmark with exposures largely from outdoors and other microenvironments. The U.S. EPA-modeled concentrations tended to overestimate personal cancer risks for beryllium and chromium but underestimate risks for nickel and arsenic.     

Vinyl chloride: a case study of data suppression and misrepresentation

When the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalized its 2000 update of the toxicological effects of vinyl chloride (VC), it was concerned with two issues: the classification of VC as a carcinogen and the numerical estimate of its potency. In this commentary we describe how the U.S. EPA review of VC toxicology, which was drafted with substantial input from the chemical industry, weakened safeguards on both points. First, the assessment down-plays risks from all cancer sites other than the liver. Second, the estimate of cancer potency was reduced 10-fold from values previously used for environmental decision making, a finding that reduces the cost and extent of pollution reduction and cleanup measures. We suggest that this assessment reflects discredited scientific practices and recommend that the U.S. EPA reverse its trend toward ever-increasing collaborations with the regulated industries when generating scientific reviews and risk assessments.     

Practical advancement of multipollutant scientific and risk assessment approaches for ambient air pollution

Objectives: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working toward gaining a better understanding of the human health impacts of exposure to complex air pollutant mixtures and the key features that drive the toxicity of these mixtures, which can then be used for future scientific and risk assessments.Data sources: A public workshop was held in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 22-24 February 2011, to discuss scientific issues and data gaps related to adopting multipollutant science and risk assessment approaches, with a particular focus on the criteria air pollutants. Expert panelists in the fields of epidemiology, toxicology, and atmospheric and exposure sciences led open discussions to encourage workshop participants to think broadly about available and emerging scientific evidence related to multipollutant approaches to evaluating the health effects of air pollution.Synthesis: Although there is clearly a need for novel research and analytical approaches to better characterize the health effects of multipollutant exposures, much progress can be made by using existing scientific information and statistical methods to evaluate the effects of single pollutants in a multipollutant context. This work will have a direct impact on the development of a multipollutant science assessment and a conceptual framework for conducting multipollutant risk assessments.Conclusions: Transitioning to a multipollutant paradigm can be aided through the adoption of a framework for multipollutant science and risk assessment that encompasses well-studied and ubiquitous air pollutants. Successfully advancing methods for conducting these assessments will require collaborative and parallel efforts between the scientific and environmental regulatory and policy communities.     

Validation of a terrestrial food chain model.

An increasingly important topic in risk assessment is the estimation of human exposure to environmental pollutants through pathways other than inhalation. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently developed a computerized methodology (EPA, 1990) to estimate indirect exposure to toxic pollutants from Municipal Waste Combuster emissions. This methodology estimates health risks from exposure to toxic pollutants from the terrestrial food chain (TFC), soil ingestion, drinking water ingestion, fish ingestion, and dermal absorption via soil and water. Of these, one of the most difficult to estimate is exposure through the food chain. This paper estimates the accuracy of the EPA methodology for estimating food chain contamination. To our knowledge, no data exist on measured concentrations of pollutants in food grown around Municipal Waste Incinerators, and few field-scale studies have been performed on the uptake of pollutants in the food chain. Therefore, to evaluate the EPA methodology, we compare actual measurements of background contaminant levels in food with estimates made using EPA's computerized methodology. Background levels of contaminants in air, water, and soil were used as input to the EPA food chain model to predict background levels of contaminants in food. These predicted values were then compared with the measured background contaminant levels. Comparisons were performed for dioxin, pentachlorophenol, polychlorinated biphenyls, benzene, benzo(a)pyrene, mercury, and lead.     

Some considerations concerning multimedia-multipollutant risk assessment methodology: use of epidemiologic data for non-cancer risk assessment in Russia

The highly industrialized small town of Verkhnyaya Pyshma (in the Urals region of Russia) was chosen as the site of a multimedia-multipollutant risk assessment using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency methodology. The assessment was based on routine environmental pollution monitoring data for ambient air, soils, drinking water, and food, and the international environmental epidemiology literature. Using an a priori set of the preliminary health-based criteria, we selected nine pollutants for risk assessment: total suspended particles (TSP), sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), ammonia arsenic, copper, cadmium, and lead. We used dose-response functions derived from epidemiologic studies to assess individual and population risks for TSP, SO2, NO2, As, Cd, and Pb. We assessed both cancer (for BaP, As, and Cd) and non-cancer (for all the chosen pollutants but BaP) responses, but in this paper we discuss only the assessments of noncarcinogenic risks due to TSP, SO2, NO2, Pb, and Cd as examples of how the quantitative estimates of health effects can be produced by using a risk function approach. We also schematically present a modified conceptual model of multimedia-multipollutant risk assessment taking into account the experience gained with this study.     

Distributional benefit analysis of a national air quality rule

Under Executive Order 12898, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must perform environmental justice (EJ) reviews of its rules and regulations. EJ analyses address the hypothesis that environmental disamenities are experienced disproportionately by poor and/or minority subgroups. Such analyses typically use communities as the unit of analysis. While community-based approaches make sense when considering where polluting sources locate, they are less appropriate for national air quality rules affecting many sources and pollutants that can travel thousands of miles. We compare exposures and health risks of EJ-identified individuals rather than communities to analyze EPA's Heavy Duty Diesel (HDD) rule as an example national air quality rule. Air pollutant exposures are estimated within grid cells by air quality models; all individuals in the same grid cell are assigned the same exposure. Using an inequality index, we find that inequality within racial/ethnic subgroups far outweighs inequality between them. We find, moreover, that the HDD rule leaves between-subgroup inequality essentially unchanged. Changes in health risks depend also on subgroups' baseline incidence rates, which differ across subgroups. Thus, health risk reductions may not follow the same pattern as reductions in exposure. These results are likely representative of other national air quality rules as well.     

Policy implications of genetic information on regulation under the Clean Air Act: the case of particulate matter and asthmatics

The U.S. Clean Air Act (CAA) explicitly guarantees the protection of sensitive human subpopulations from adverse health effects associated with air pollution exposure. Identified subpopulations, such as asthmatics, may carry multiple genetic susceptibilities to disease onset and progression and thus qualify for special protection under the CAA. Scientific advances accelerated as a result of the groundbreaking Human Genome Project enable the quantification of genetic information that underlies such human variability in susceptibility and the cellular mechanisms of disease. In epidemiology and regulatory toxicology, genetic information can more clearly elucidate human susceptibility essential to risk assessment, such as in support of air quality regulation. In an effort to encourage the incorporation of genomic information in regulation, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued an Interim Policy on Genomics. Additional research strategy and policy documents from the National Academy of Science, the U.S. EPA, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services further promote the expansion of asthma genetics research for human health risk assessment. Through a review of these government documents, we find opportunities for the inclusion of genetic information in the regulation of air pollutants. In addition, we identify sources of information in recent scientific research on asthma genetics relevant to regulatory standard setting. We conclude with recommendations on how to integrate these approaches for the improvement of regulatory health science and the prerequisites for inclusion of genetic information in decision making.     

Assessment of potential risk levels associated with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reference values

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) generally uses reference doses (RfDs) or reference concentrations (RfCs) to assess risks from exposure to toxic substances for noncancer health end points. RfDs and RfCs are supposed to represent lifetime inhalation or ingestion exposure with minimal appreciable risk, but they do not include information about the estimated risk from exposures equal to the RfD/RfC. We used results from benchmark dose modeling approaches recently adopted for use in developing RfDs/RfCs to estimate the risk levels associated with exposures at the RfD/RfC. We searched the U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database and identified 11 chemicals with oral RfDs and 12 chemicals with inhalation RfCs that used benchmark dose modeling. For assessments with sufficient model information, we found that 16 of 21 (76%) of the dose-response models were linear or supralinear. We estimated the risk from exposures at the established RfDs and RfCs for these chemicals using a linear dose-response curve to characterize risk below the observed data. Risk estimates ranged from 1 in 10,000 to 5 in 1,000 for exposures at the RfDs, and from 1 in 10,000 to 3 in 1,000 for exposures at the RfCs. Risk estimates for exposures at the RfD/RfC values derived from sublinear dose-response curves ranged from 3 in 1,000,000,000 to 8 in 10,000. Twenty-four percent of reference values corresponded to estimated risk levels greater than 1 in 1,000; 10 of 14 assessments had points of departure greater than the no-observed-adverse-effect levels. For policy development regarding management of cancer risks, the U.S. EPA often uses 1 in 1,000,000 as a de minimis risk level. Although noncancer outcomes may in some instances be reversible and considered less severe than cancer, our findings call into question the assumption that established RfD and RfC values represent negligibly small risk levels.     

Quantitative risk assessment of lung cancer in U.S. uranium miners

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has recently updated the vital status of the U.S. cohort of U miners through the end of 1982. This represents 69 additional lung cancer deaths since the last published follow-up through 1977. This more recent data was used to generate quantitative risk estimates of lung cancer after exposure to Rn daughters. Relative risks were estimated through use of the Cox proportional hazards model with an internal referent group. Results indicated that the exposure-response relationship was a slightly convex curve, predicting excess relative risks between 0.9 and 1.4 per 100 working level months (WLM) in the lower cumulative exposure range. Other findings of interest include a significant exposure-rate effect with low exposure rates more harmful per unit of cumulative exposure (WLM). Two temporal effects which modify relative risk estimates were also found. Relative risk increased with age at initial exposure to underground U mining. However, relative risk of lung cancer fell dramatically in the years following cessation of exposure.     

Playing it safe: assessing cumulative impact and social vulnerability through an environmental justice screening method in the South Coast Air Basin, California

Regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and state authorities like the California Air Resources Board (CARB), have sought to address the concerns of environmental justice (EJ) advocates who argue that chemical-by-chemical and source-specific assessments of potential health risks of environmental hazards do not reflect the multiple environmental and social stressors faced by vulnerable communities. We propose an Environmental Justice Screening Method (EJSM) as a relatively simple, flexible and transparent way to examine the relative rank of cumulative impacts and social vulnerability within metropolitan regions and determine environmental justice areas based on more than simply the demographics of income and race. We specifically organize 23 indicator metrics into three categories: (1) hazard proximity and land use; (2) air pollution exposure and estimated health risk; and (3) social and health vulnerability. For hazard proximity, the EJSM uses GIS analysis to create a base map by intersecting land use data with census block polygons, and calculates hazard proximity measures based on locations within various buffer distances. These proximity metrics are then summarized to the census tract level where they are combined with tract centroid-based estimates of pollution exposure and health risk and socio-economic status (SES) measures. The result is a cumulative impacts (CI) score for ranking neighborhoods within regions that can inform diverse stakeholders seeking to identify local areas that might need targeted regulatory strategies to address environmental justice concerns.     

Ranking cancer risks of organic hazardous air pollutants in the United States

BACKGROUND: In this study we compared cancer risks from organic hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) based on total personal exposure summed across different microenvironments and exposure pathways. METHODS: We developed distributions of personal exposure concentrations using field monitoring and modeling data for inhalation and, where relevant, ingestion pathways. We calculated risks for a nonoccupationally exposed and nonsmoking population using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) unit risks. We determined the contribution to risk from indoor versus outdoor sources using indoor/outdoor ratios for gaseous compounds and the infiltration factor for particle-bound compounds. RESULTS: With OEHHA's unit risks, the highest ranking compounds based on the population median are 1,3-butadiene, formaldehyde, benzene, and dioxin, with risks on the order of 10(-4)-10(-5). The highest risk compounds with the U.S. EPA unit risks were dioxin, benzene, formaldehyde, and chloroform, with risks on a similar order of magnitude. Although indoor exposures are responsible for nearly 70% of risk using OEHHA's unit risks, when infiltration is accounted for, inhalation of outdoor sources contributed 50% to total risk, on average. Additionally, 15% of risk resulted from exposures through food, mainly due to dioxin. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon, benzene, acetaldehyde, and 1,3-butadiene risk came from outdoor sources, whereas indoor sources were primarily responsible for chloroform, formaldehyde, and naphthalene risks. The infiltration of outdoor pollution into buildings, emissions from indoor sources, and uptake through food are all important to consider in reducing overall personal risk to HAPs.     

Risk assessment and risk management of noncriteria pollutants.

Noncriteria air pollutants are synonymous with hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), air toxics or toxic air pollutants (TAPs). The term noncriteria pollutants refers to all air pollutants except for the criteria pollutants (SOx, PM, NOx, CO, O3, and Pb). Air toxics are pervasive in our environment worldwide in varying degrees. Uses of these chemicals are varied and numerous; their emissions are ubiquitous, and they include organic compounds such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, dioxins, aldehydes, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy metals such as chromium, nickel, cadmium, and mercury. There are more than 70,000 chemicals that are in use commercially in the United States, and we know relatively little about their ambient concentrations, persistence, transport and transformation as well as their effects on health and the environment, many of which take decades to emerge. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, under the authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, is mandated to regulate any air pollutant which, in the Administrator's judgment, "causes, or contributes to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to result in an increase in serious irreversible or incapacitating reversible illness." For such regulatory decision-making, EPA's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment (OHEA) provides scientific assessment of health effects for potentially hazardous air pollutants. In accordance with risk assessment guidelines developed by OHEA over the years, Health Assessment Documents (HADs) containing risk assessment information were prepared and were subjected to critical review and careful revision to produce Final Draft HADs which serve as scientific databases for regulatory decision-making by the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) in its risk management process. EPA developed databases such as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse (NATICH) and a technical assistance response system called the Air Risk Information Support Center (AIR RISC), in addition, to help in implementation of the National Air Toxics Program by state and local regulators.     

Air toxics in the U.S.: magnitude of the problem and strategy for control

Over the past several years, substantial concern has been expressed by some in Congress, environmental groups, and members of the public concerning the lack of progress in regulating toxic air pollutants by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). As a result, a number of amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act have been introduced to require EPA to regulate in a relatively rapid timeframe, a large number of potentially toxic pollutants that are released to the ambient air. This paper discusses EPA's current understanding of the magnitude and nature of the air toxics problem in the U.S., and the pollutants and source categories that pose the most significant risk to the public. The focus of the discussion is on routine releases, as opposed to catastrophic, accidental releases such as the one in Bhopal, India. The paper then discusses the strategy that EPA has put in place to deal with the problem and presents the status of a number of regulatory and non-regulatory activities under way to better understand the problem and to mitigate it. The strategy involves important roles for: (1) EPA to regulate national problems using a variety of Federal authorities in addition to the Clean Air Act, and (2) States to develop their own air toxic control programs to deal with unique local problems involving high risk point sources and multipollutant, multisource problems in large urban or industrialized areas.     

A screening method for assessing cumulative impacts

The California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA) Environmental Justice Action Plan calls for guidelines for evaluating "cumulative impacts." As a first step toward such guidelines, a screening methodology for assessing cumulative impacts in communities was developed. The method, presented here, is based on the working definition of cumulative impacts adopted by Cal/EPA: "Cumulative impacts means exposures, public health or environmental effects from the combined emissions and discharges in a geographic area, including environmental pollution from all sources, whether single or multi-media, routinely, accidentally, or otherwise released. Impacts will take into account sensitive populations and socio-economic factors, where applicable and to the extent data are available." The screening methodology is built on this definition as well as current scientific understanding of environmental pollution and its adverse impacts on health, including the influence of both intrinsic, biological factors and non-intrinsic socioeconomic factors in mediating the effects of pollutant exposures. It addresses disparities in the distribution of pollution and health outcomes. The methodology provides a science-based tool to screen places for relative cumulative impacts, incorporating both the pollution burden on a community- including exposures to pollutants, their public health and environmental effects- and community characteristics, specifically sensitivity and socioeconomic factors. The screening methodology provides relative rankings to distinguish more highly impacted communities from less impacted ones. It may also help identify which factors are the greatest contributors to a community's cumulative impact. It is not designed to provide quantitative estimates of community-level health impacts. A pilot screening analysis is presented here to illustrate the application of this methodology. Once guidelines are adopted, the methodology can serve as a screening tool to help Cal/EPA programs prioritize their activities and target those communities with the greatest cumulative impacts.     

The welfare value of FDA's mercury-in-fish advisory: A dynamic reanalysis

Assessing the welfare impact of consumer health advisories is a thorny task. Recently, Shimshack and Ward (2010) studied how U.S. households responded to FDA's 2001 mercury-in-fish advisory. They found that the average at-risk household reduced fish consumption by 21%, resulting in a 17%-reduction in mercury exposure at the cost of a 21%-reduction in cardioprotective omega-3 fatty acids. Based on a static assessment of the health costs and benefits Shimshack and Ward concluded that the advisory policy resulted in an overall consumer welfare loss. In this note, we propose a dynamic assessment that links the long-term cardiovascular health effects of the advisory to life-cycle consumption. We find that under reasonable assumptions the welfare loss might be much larger than suggested. Our analysis highlights the importance of accounting for dynamic effects when evaluating persistent changes in exposure to environmental health risks.