Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

Nicholas Chartres; Jennifer B Sass; David Gee; Simona A Bălan; Linda Birnbaum; Vincent James Cogliano; Courtney Cooper; Kristi Pullen Fedinick; Roy M Harrison; Marike Kolossa-Gehring; Daniele Mandrioli; Mark A Mitchell; Susan L Norris; Christopher J Portier; Kurt Straif; Theo Vermeire

doi:10.1186/s12940-022-00926-z

Conducting evaluations of evidence that are transparent, timely and can lead to health-protective actions

Environ Health. 2022 Dec 5;21(1):123. doi: 10.1186/s12940-022-00926-z.

Authors

Nicholas Chartres¹, Jennifer B Sass^{2

3}, David Gee⁴, Simona A Bălan^{5

6}, Linda Birnbaum⁷, Vincent James Cogliano⁸, Courtney Cooper⁹, Kristi Pullen Fedinick², Roy M Harrison^{10

11}, Marike Kolossa-Gehring¹², Daniele Mandrioli¹³, Mark A Mitchell^{14

15}, Susan L Norris¹⁶, Christopher J Portier^{17

18

19}, Kurt Straif^{20

21}, Theo Vermeire²²

Affiliations

¹ Program On Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA. Nicholas.Chartres@ucsf.edu.
² Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, USA.
³ George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA.
⁴ Brunel University, London, UK.
⁵ California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Berkeley, CA, USA.
⁶ University of California at Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.
⁷ Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USA.
⁸ California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, CA, USA.
⁹ Program On Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California at San Francisco, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA, 94143, USA.
¹⁰ School of Geography, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
¹¹ Department of Environmental Sciences/Centre of Excellence in Environmental Studies, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
¹² Department of Environmental Hygiene, Section Toxicology, Health Related Environmental Monitoring, German Federal Environmental Agency, Dessau-Roßlau, Germany.
¹³ Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy.
¹⁴ George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.
¹⁵ Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice, Hartford, CT, USA.
¹⁶ Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
¹⁷ Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
¹⁸ Department of Toxicogenomics, Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands.
¹⁹ CJP Consulting, Seattle, WA, USA.
²⁰ ISGlobal, Barcelona, Spain.
²¹ Boston College, Newton, MA, USA.
²² Retired, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Abstract

Background: In February 2021, over one hundred scientists and policy experts participated in a web-based Workshop to discuss the ways that divergent evaluations of evidence and scientific uncertainties are used to delay timely protection of human health and the environment from exposures to hazardous agents. The Workshop arose from a previous workshop organized by the European Environment Agency (EEA) in 2008 and which also drew on case studies from the EEA reports on 'Late Lessons from Early Warnings' (2001, 2013). These reports documented dozens of hazardous agents including many chemicals, for which risk reduction measures were delayed for decades after scientists and others had issued early and later warnings about the harm likely to be caused by those agents.

Results: Workshop participants used recent case studies including Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), Extremely Low Frequency - Electrical Magnetic Fields (ELF-EMF fields), glyphosate, and Bisphenol A (BPA) to explore myriad reasons for divergent outcomes of evaluations, which has led to delayed and inadequate protection of the public's health. Strategies to overcome these barriers must, therefore, at a minimum include approaches that 1) Make better use of existing data and information, 2) Ensure timeliness, 3) Increase transparency, consistency and minimize bias in evidence evaluations, and 4) Minimize the influence of financial conflicts of interest.

Conclusion: The recommendations should enhance the production of "actionable evidence," that is, reliable evaluations of the scientific evidence to support timely actions to protect health and environments from exposures to hazardous agents. The recommendations are applicable to policy and regulatory settings at the local, state, federal and international levels.

Keywords: Conflicts of interest; Cumulative impacts; Environmental justice; Industry sponsorship; Non-chemical stressors; Precautionary principle; Risk of bias; Systematic review; Transparency.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Education
Humans
Internet
Medical Informatics*
Uncertainty