Results of the Society of Toxicology’s Expert Panel Workshop “Risk Assessment of Mixtures: Development of Testable Hypotheses As Science Input Into Policy.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Inquiry-Based Instruction
Advertisements

Perspectives from EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program
Felicia Barnett Ronald B. Landy USEPA Office of Research and Development Office of Science Policy Regional Science Program.
Connecting Innovations in Biological, Exposure and Risk Sciences: Better Information for Better Decisions Charleston Place Hotel United States June 16.
1 Post-UNEP/WHO EDC State of the Science 2012 report Personal reflections by Åke Bergman, coordinator of the above mentioned report, IPCP vice chair and.
Session III: Assessing Cumulative Effects of Endocrine Active Substances 9:15 - 9:30 Introduction” Rick Becker (Session Chair and Panel Moderator) 9:30.
Regulatory Toxicology James Swenberg, D.V.M., Ph.D.
1 High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge Program – Future Directions Jim Willis Director, Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and.
1 Pharmacology/Toxicology information to submit an IND for an anticancer drug.
Integrating CMC Review & Inspection Industry Recommendations Joe Anisko April 24, 2003.
William H. Farland, Ph.D. Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science Office of Research and Development U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Biomarkers:
NSF/ANSI STANDARD 61 FRAMEWORK FOR RISK ASSESSMENTS For use by Toxicology Sub-committee only Please do not copy or distribute.
© 2008 Society of Toxicology Creating a safer and healthier world by advancing the science of toxicology.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Working with FDA: Biological Products and Clinical Development Critical Path.
REVIEW OF THE LOW DOSE RADIATION RESEARCH PROGRAM (LDRRP) IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE FOR BIOLOGICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH.
Merging Scientific and Advocate Communities: The Transdisciplinary Research Model in the BCERC Kami J. Silk, Ph.D. Department of Communication Michigan.
Collaboration Workshop for Global Health System Strengthening Triangle Global Health Consortium 02 December 2009 Sally S. Tinkle Senior Science Advisor,
What Do Toxicologists Do?
Evolution of ICCVAM ◊National Toxicology Program Develop and validate improved test methods ◊NIH Revitalization Act: P.L Develop and.
1 Elaine M. Faustman, Ph.D. Institute for Risk Analysis & Risk Communication Risk Assessment and Communication at.
The National Academies’ Board on Life Sciences Dr. Frances Sharples Director National Research Council National Research Council.
Michael H. Dong MPH, DrPA, PhD readings Toxicologic Epidemiology (10th of 10 Lectures on Toxicologic Epidemiology)
TCEQ/NUATRC Air Toxics Workshop: Session V – Human Health Effects Nathan Pechacek, M.S. Toxicology Section Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Outcomes of Public Health
Environmental • failure analysis & prevention • health • technology development A leading engineering & scientific consulting firm dedicated to helping.
Web of Causation; Exposure and Disease Outcomes Thomas Songer, PhD Basic Epidemiology South Asian Cardiovascular Research Methodology Workshop.
National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Scale, Diversity, and Complexity: Tackling Data Challenges in the Superfund.
NEKIA Business Development Progress Report Board of Directors Meeting May 7,2003.
20 YEARS OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN HEALTH/WORK/ENVIRONMENT September 6, 2012 Thoughts of a reviewer Prof Dick Heederik, PhD IRAS, Utrecht University, The.
Respiratory Safety Pharmacology Endpoints in Toxicology Simon Authier, DVM, MBA, PhD Director - Safety Pharmacology and Veterinary Science CIToxLAB North.
Activities of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council Gail Mallard, USGS NWQMC Meeting Phoenix, AZ, December 10, 2002.
EE325 Introductory Econometrics1 Welcome to EE325 Introductory Econometrics Introduction Why study Econometrics? What is Econometrics? Methodology of Econometrics.
Mike Comber Consulting TIMES-SS Assessment of skin sensitisation hazard Presented on behalf of the TIMES-SS consortia.
Multimedia Assessment for New Fuels: Stakeholders’ Meeting September 13, 2005 Sacramento, CA Dean Simeroth, California Air Resources Board Dave Rice, Lawrence.
Beyond and Decisions: From Problem Formulation to Dose- Response.
Tribal Science Council Regaining and Protecting “Regaining and Protecting Tribal Culture through Science Tribal Culture through Science” 6th Annual New.
HESI ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute HESI PROJECT COMMITTEE ON DOSE-DEPENDENT TRANSITIONS IN MECHANISMS OF TOXICITY NANCY G. DOERRER,
Quantitative Assessment of Cumulative Impacts: Challenges and Progress Lauren Zeise Cal/EPA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment CAPCOA Workshop:
Moving from Paper to Project Operationalizing Opportunities Identified During Technology Needs Assessments CTI Side Event, SBSTA 18, 6 June 2003.
Development of a Common Effects Methodology for OW and OPP EPA Development Team Office of Pesticide Programs Office of Water Office of Research and Development.
FDA EID Workshop: Day 2 Organs, Tissues and Cells Melissa A. Greenwald, MD Blood Products Advisory Committee 26 July 2010 Gaithersburg, MD.
Public Health Assessment Process Jack Hanley, M.P.H. Environmental Health Scientist Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
Draft. NAWMP Progress Assessment You did what with our $3 billion?
Systematic Review: Interpreting Results and Identifying Gaps October 17, 2012.
1 Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program Environmental Summit May 20, 2008 Jim Alwood Chemical Control Division Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
Research in the Office of Vaccines Research and Review: Vision and Overview Jesse Goodman, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
NUATRC/TCEQ Air Toxics Workshop October Air Toxics Air Toxics: What We Know, What we Don’t Know, and What We Need to Know Human Health Effects –
Research in the Office of Cellular, Tissue and Gene Therapies: Vision and Overview Jesse Goodman, M.D., M.P.H. Director, Center for Biologics Evaluation.
Rome Donors Meeting September 7th1 Consultation of AMC concept with key stakeholders Rome Donors Meeting September 7 th, 2006.
National Program 302 Plant Biological and Molecular Processes The Previous Five Years External Assessment Team John Boyer, Mary Lou Guerinot, T. David.
Michael P. Holsapple, PhD, Fellow ATS HESI Executive Director Future of Chemical Toxicity Testing in the US Monday, 21 June 2010 National Press Club, Washington,
Technology Services – National Institute of Standards and Technology Facilitating Global Markets: NIST Dialogue with Regulators Mary Saunders Chief, Standards.
Program Learning Outcome Development Guide: Steps and Resources Sacramento City College Department Workshops Spring, 2006 Facilitators: Alan Keys, Faculty.
Considerations for Developing Alternative Health Risk Assessment Approaches for Addressing Multiple Chemicals, Exposures and Effects External Review Draft.
1 Role of Public Health Nursing in Environmental Health Presented by Marita Santos, RN, MSN Stella Fogleman, RN, MSN/MPH Los Angeles County Department.
National Institutes of Health U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Planning for a Team Science Evaluation ∞ NIEHS: Children’s Health Exposure Analysis.
New Ecological Science Advice for Ecosystem Protection The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office supports three external scientific advisory committees.
Short Contribution Title Goes Here
Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The Value of Epidemiology
DARM 2013: Assessment and decision making
Impact assessment and decision making
The Joint CEOS/CGMS Working Group on Climate
Introductory Econometrics
Short Contribution Title Goes Here
Regulatory Sciences and Government Affairs
Beyond Science and Decisions: Problem Formulation to Dose Response
Using Mode of Action to Reduce Uncertainty in Risk Estimates
Evaluating Cumulative Impacts: The Value of Epidemiology
Introduction to Risk Assessment
Presentation transcript:

Results of the Society of Toxicology’s Expert Panel Workshop “Risk Assessment of Mixtures: Development of Testable Hypotheses As Science Input Into Policy Decisions” Jay I. Goodman Michigan State University International Conference on Chemical Mixtures, Atlanta, GA,

Risk Assessment of Mixtures: Development of Testable Hypotheses A Workshop Organized by the Society of Toxicology September 8-9, 2002

The Society of Toxicology’s Core Purpose is to Enhance Human, Animal and Environmental Health Through the Science of Toxicology “Toxicology is part of the solution!”

SOT Expert Panel Workshop Chris Borgert James Bruckner Edward Carney Janice Chambers Rory Conolly Chris DeRosa Pat Durkin Hisham El-Masri Elaine Faustman Chris Gennings John Groton Richard Hertzberg Kannan Krishnan Lynn McCarty Joel Pounds Paul Price Glenn Rice Thomas Sinks Nigel Walker John Wysner Raymond Yang Tim Zacharewski

Sponsors Society of Toxicology Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry Chlorine Chemistry Council National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Steering Committee John Bucher - NIEHS Jim Bus - Dow Chemical Co. Bill Farland - U.S. EPA Jay Goodman (Chair) - Michigan State University Shawn Lamb - Society of Toxicology Ann Mason - Chlorine Chemistry Council Moiz Mumatz - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Rod Parrish - SETAC Claudia Thompson - NIEHS

The Initial Stages Formation of a Working Group to identify broad technical issues. Hold a Workshop to build upon the issues identified by the Working Group: Identify Testable Hypotheses. Chlorine Chemistry Council, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental Protection Agency to make a good faith effort to incorporate the “testable hypotheses” into their existing mechanisms to fund research.

Working Group Meeting, September 2000 Members: Linda Teuschler (Chair) - U.S. EPA Jim Klaunig (Co-Chair) - Indiana University Ed Carney - Dow Chemical Co. Janice Chambers - Mississippi State University Rory Conolly - CIIT, Ctrs. Hlth. Research Chris Gennings - Virginia Commonwealth University John Giesy - Michigan State University Richard Hertzberg - U.S. EPA Curt Klaassen - University of Kansas Ralph Kodell - National Center for Toxicological Research. Dennis Paustenbach - Exponent Environmental Group Raymond Yang - Colorado State University

Working Group “… a substantially enhanced toxicology research program is required in order to provide a strong, science-based approach to the assessment of the potential toxicity of mixtures.” Teuschler et al. (2002). Support of science- based decisions concerning the evaluation of the toxicology of mixtures: A new beginning. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, in press.

White Paper “… a consensus paper suggesting that … toxicology must advance into largely uncharted territory that places a strong emphasis specifically upon three key ideas….” 1. Focus on real world exposures 2. Use a collaborative, multi-disciplinary team approach 3. Novel approaches and new technologies need to be employed to obtain the mechanistic information necessary to develop biologically-based models that can enhance our ability to predict potential health risks from real world exposure to complex mixtures.

Workshop, September 8-9, 2002 Risk assessment of Mixtures: Development of Testable Hypotheses Charge: Propose biologically-based hypotheses and experimental approaches to enhance the scientific quality of risk assessments. Goal: To facilitate the generation of productive research strategies, leading to information that will improve the scientific foundation of mixture regulatory practices and policies.

The starting points: Enhancement of the scientific basis for risk assessment of mixtures is necessary. The three “basic themes” presented in the White Paper provide the basis upon which the Workshop shall move forward. All discussion of models will be centered upon those that are biologically-based.

Breakout Sessions to Identify Key Questions, Data Gaps and Critical Needs for Decision Making Session 1: Exposure Session 2: Dose Session 3: Biologically-Based Models

Breakout Sessions to Identify Key Hypotheses to be Tested to Answer the Critical Needs Session 4: Individual Components vs. Whole Session 5: Real World Exposure Session 6: High to Low Dose

The Focus: Real world exposure Toxicity testing at environmental doses Biologically-based models Note: It is possible to perform hypothesis- driven research aimed at explaining why a threshold may exist.

Breakout Session 1: Exposure Key Scientific Questions/Data Gaps How does mixture change [e.g., dose, route, physical state] from source to exposure media to populations of concern? People have complex environmental exposure histories that are not usually reflected by experimental [laboratory] studies. Biomonitoring results may not be reflective of short lived, poorly detectable, and unknown compounds from biologic media.

Breakout Session 2: Dose Key Scientific Questions/Data Gaps Interaction thresholds: Are environmental levels of exposure of any physiological significance for understanding “adverse” response? Is there a general relationship between thresholds of toxicity and interaction thresholds? What dose metrics represent “common currency” for complex mixtures within and across levels of biological organization?

Breakout Session 3: Biologically- Based Models Key Scientific Questions/Data Gaps Do binary interactions predict mixture toxicity? What are the modeling-specific data needs? How to bridge the gap between empirical and mechanistically-based models ?

Research Hypotheses Additivity prevails at low exposure levels. Apparent dose thresholds for interactions are higher than individual chemical thresholds. Mixture toxicity and interaction thresholds can be predicted from known interaction processes.

Research Hypotheses The mechanism/mode of action is the same at all doses. Unique responses at molecular levels in mixtures compared to individual chemicals suggest novel effects of mixtures. Populations susceptible to individual chemicals are more susceptible to complex mixtures than the general population.

Research Hypotheses Toxicokinetics/toxicodynamics of a mixture can be predicted from the toxicokinetics/ toxicodynamics of the individual chemicals. The “unidentifiable fraction” of a mixture contributes nothing to the complex mixture. Mixtures toxicity estimation can be simplified by grouping components with similar properties.

Overall Conclusions Enhancing science-based safety assessment: A win-win situation. The ability to make progress can be enhanced by academia, government and industry working together. The Society of Toxicology can play a key role as a facilitator of these activities.