Do Interactions Between Environmental Chemicals and the Human Microbiome Need to Be Considered in Risk Assessments?

One of the most dynamic and fruitful areas of current health‐related research concerns the various roles of the human microbiome in disease. Evidence is accumulating that interactions between substances in the environment and the microbiome can affect risks of disease, in both beneficial and adverse ways. Although most of the research has concerned the roles of diet and certain pharmaceutical agents, there is increasing interest in the possible roles of environmental chemicals. Chemical risk assessment has, to date, not included consideration of the influence of the microbiome. We suggest that failure to consider the possible roles of the microbiome could lead to significant error in risk assessment results. Our purpose in this commentary is to summarize some of the evidence supporting our hypothesis and to urge the risk assessment community to begin considering and influencing how results from microbiome‐related research could be incorporated into chemical risk assessments. An additional emphasis in our commentary concerns the distinct possibility that research on chemical–microbiome interactions will also reduce some of the significant uncertainties that accompany current risk assessments. Of particular interest is evidence suggesting that the microbiome has an influence on variability in disease risk across populations and (of particular interest to chemical risk) in animal and human responses to chemical exposure. The possible explanatory power of the microbiome regarding sources of variability could reduce what might be the most significant source of uncertainty in chemical risk assessment.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151980/1/risa13316_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/151980/2/risa13316.pd

Leveraging Epidemiology to Improve Risk Assessment.

The field of environmental public health is at an important crossroad. Our current biomonitoring efforts document widespread exposure to a host of chemicals for which toxicity information is lacking. At the same time, advances in the fields of genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, genetics and epigenetics are yielding volumes of data at a rapid pace. Our ability to detect chemicals in biological and environmental media has far outpaced our ability to interpret their health relevance, and as a result, the environmental risk paradigm, in its current state, is antiquated and ill-equipped to make the best use of these new data. In light of new scientific developments and the pressing need to characterize the public health burdens of chemicals, it is imperative to reinvigorate the use of environmental epidemiology in chemical risk assessment. Two case studies of chemical assessments from the Environmental Protection Agency Integrated Risk Information System database are presented to illustrate opportunities where epidemiologic data could have been used in place of experimental animal data in dose-response assessment, or where different approaches, techniques, or studies could have been employed to better utilize existing epidemiologic evidence. Based on the case studies and what can be learned from recent scientific advances and improved approaches to utilizing human data for dose-response estimation, recommendations are provided for the disciplines of epidemiology and risk assessment for enhancing the role of epidemiologic data in hazard identification and dose-response assessment

Options for basing Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) on chronic disease endpoints: report from a joint US-/Canadian-sponsored working group.

Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) are used in Canada and the United States in planning and assessing diets of apparently healthy individuals and population groups. The approaches used to establish DRIs on the basis of classical nutrient deficiencies and/or toxicities have worked well. However, it has proved to be more challenging to base DRI values on chronic disease endpoints; deviations from the traditional framework were often required, and in some cases, DRI values were not established for intakes that affected chronic disease outcomes despite evidence that supported a relation. The increasing proportions of elderly citizens, the growing prevalence of chronic diseases, and the persistently high prevalence of overweight and obesity, which predispose to chronic disease, highlight the importance of understanding the impact of nutrition on chronic disease prevention and control. A multidisciplinary working group sponsored by the Canadian and US government DRI steering committees met from November 2014 to April 2016 to identify options for addressing key scientific challenges encountered in the use of chronic disease endpoints to establish reference values. The working group focused on 3 key questions: 1) What are the important evidentiary challenges for selecting and using chronic disease endpoints in future DRI reviews, 2) what intake-response models can future DRI committees consider when using chronic disease endpoints, and 3) what are the arguments for and against continuing to include chronic disease endpoints in future DRI reviews? This report outlines the range of options identified by the working group for answering these key questions, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each option

Application of a Key Events Dose-Response Analysis to Nutrients: A Case Study with Vitamin A (Retinol)

The methodology used to establish tolerable upper intake levels (UL) for nutrients borrows heavily from risk assessment methods used by toxicologists. Empirical data are used to identify intake levels associated with adverse effects, and Uncertainty Factors (UF) are applied to establish ULs, which in turn inform public health decisions and standards. Use of UFs reflects lack of knowledge regarding the biological events that underlie response to the intake of a given nutrient, and also regarding the sources of variability in that response. In this paper, the Key Events Dose-Response Framework (KEDRF) is used to systematically consider the major biological steps that lead from the intake of the preformed vitamin A to excess systemic levels, and subsequently to increased risk of adverse effects. Each step is examined with regard to factors that influence whether there is progression toward the adverse effect of concern. The role of homeostatic mechanisms is discussed, along with the types of research needed to improve understanding of dose-response for vitamin A. This initial analysis illustrates the potential of the KEDRF as a useful analytical tool for integrating current knowledge regarding dose-response, generating questions that will focus future research efforts, and clarifying how improved knowledge and data could be used to reduce reliance on UFs

Emerging technologies and their impact on regulatory science

There is an evolution and increasing need for the utilization of emerging cellular, molecular and in silico technologies and novel approaches for safety assessment of food, drugs, and personal care products. Convergence of these emerging technologies is also enabling rapid advances and approaches that may impact regulatory decisions and approvals. Although the development of emerging technologies may allow rapid advances in regulatory decision making, there is concern that these new technologies have not been thoroughly evaluated to determine if they are ready for regulatory application, singularly or in combinations. The magnitude of these combined technical advances may outpace the ability to assess fit for purpose and to allow routine application of these new methods for regulatory purposes. There is a need to develop strategies to evaluate the new technologies to determine which ones are ready for regulatory use. The opportunity to apply these potentially faster, more accurate, and cost-effective approaches remains an important goal to facilitate their incorporation into regulatory use. However, without a clear strategy to evaluate emerging technologies rapidly and appropriately, the value of these efforts may go unrecognized or may take longer. It is important for the regulatory science field to keep up with the research in these technically advanced areas and to understand the science behind these new approaches. The regulatory field must understand the critical quality attributes of these novel approaches and learn from each other's experience so that workforces can be trained to prepare for emerging global regulatory challenges. Moreover, it is essential that the regulatory community must work with the technology developers to harness collective capabilities towards developing a strategy for evaluation of these new and novel assessment tools

When Risk Assessment Came to Washington: A Look Back

Federal regulatory agencies had, by the 1970s, been charged with enforcing a host of new laws requiring that they establish controls on human exposures to chemicals necessary to protect health. The agencies relied upon a methodology introduced in the 1950s to identify safe levels of exposure to chemicals known to display toxicity. During the 2 decades prior to the 1970s, federal authorities had come to treat carcinogens as distinct from other toxic agents, and to regard them as unsafe at any level of exposure, and no systematic methods had been developed to deal with the rapidly increasing numbers of carcinogens. Beginning in the mid-1970s, some scientists and policy makers in regulatory agencies, including the present author, began to propose adopting emerging quantitative methods to evaluate the risks of carcinogens and introduced new notions of safety based on explicit consideration of risk. Quantitative risk assessment rose to prominence in the decade reviewed in this article (1974-1984) and began to replace the unsystematic approaches that provided no view of how well health would be protected under various regulatory controls. This article offers the author’s recollections of that important decade