Precise Yet Uncertain: Broadening Understandings of Uncertainty and Policy in the BPA Controversy.
Ambiguity
EFSA
bisphenol A
endocrine disruptor
indeterminacy
risk
uncertainty
Journal
Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis
ISSN: 1539-6924
Titre abrégé: Risk Anal
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8109978
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2022
02 2022
Historique:
revised:
13
10
2021
received:
15
06
2020
accepted:
14
10
2021
pubmed:
3
12
2021
medline:
19
4
2022
entrez:
2
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most studied and most controversial chemicals used by the food packaging industry, because of its endocrine disruptive properties. Part of the controversy is due to the uncertainty that surrounds the effects of BPA on the endocrine system. Uncertainty includes data gaps, methodological hurdles, incompatibilities between toxicology and endocrinology-based approaches, and so on. In this article, we analyze how uncertainty has been conceptualized and treated. We focus on the European Food Safety Authority assessments of BPA, and study how exposure and hazard assessments have evolved over time, how uncertainty has been analyzed, and how the agency responded to controversies. Results show that in the attempt to reduce knowledge gaps, assessments have become progressively larger, including more references, evidence, and effects. There is a tendency toward greater precisions and specification of results, and toward protocolization of all processes included in the assessment (from literature review, to uncertainty assessments, and public consultation). Yet, the uncertainty has not diminished following the increase in evidence. We argue that the strategy used to reduce uncertainty within risk assessment, namely including more variables, studies, data, and methods, amplifies the uncertainty linked to indeterminacy (as more results increase the fragmentation of the knowledge base due to the open-ended nature of complex issues) and ambiguity (as complexity gives way to multiple nonequivalent interpretations of results). For this reason, it is important to consider different types of uncertainty and how these uncertainties interact with each other.
Substances chimiques
Benzhydryl Compounds
0
Phenols
0
bisphenol A
MLT3645I99
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
279-297Informations de copyright
© 2021 The Authors. Risk Analysis published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society for Risk Analysis.
Références
Andersen, F., Anjum, R. L., & Rocca, E. (2019). Philosophical bias is the one bias that science cannot avoid. Elife, 8, e44929. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.44929
ANSES (French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety). (2013). Opinion of the French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety on the assessment of the risks associated with bisphenol A for human health, and on toxicological data and data on the use of bisphenols S, F, M, B, AP, AF and BADGE. Retrieved from https://www.anses.fr/en/system/files/CHIM2009sa0331Ra-0EN.PDF
Aven, T. (2018). An emerging new risk analysis science: foundations and implications. Risk Analysis, 38(5), 876-888. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12899
Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2009). On risk defined as an event where the outcome is uncertain. Journal of Risk Research, 12(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669870802488883
Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2010). Introduction: Concept of risk. In Risk management and governance: Concepts, guidelines and applications (pp. 1-15). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Aven, T., & Renn, O. (2020). Some foundational issues related to risk governance and different types of risks. Journal of Risk Research, 23(9), 1121-1134. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2019.1569099
Beronius, A., Molander, L., Rudén, C., & Hanberg, A. (2014). Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: A proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting. Journal of Applied Toxicology, 34(6), 607-617. https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.2991
Beronius, A., Rudén, C., Håkansson, H., & Hanberg, A. (2010). Risk to all or none?: A comparative analysis of controversies in the health risk assessment of Bisphenol A. Reproductive Toxicology, 29(2), 132-146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2009.11.007
Delclos, K. B., Camacho, L., Lewis, S. M., Vanlandingham, M. M., Latendresse, J. R., Olson, G. R., … Thorn, B. T. (2014). Toxicity evaluation of bisphenol A administered by gavage to Sprague Dawley rats from gestation day 6 through postnatal day 90. Toxicological Sciences, 139(1), 174-197. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfu022
Douglas, H. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
DTU-Food (National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark). (2015). Evaluation of EFSA's new scientific opinion on bisphenol A. Retrieved from https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/110640983/Evaluation_BisphenolA_1.pdf
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2006). Opinion of the scientific panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food on a request from the commission related to 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)propane (bisphenol A). EFSA Journal, 5(1), 428. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2007.428
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2008a). Scientific opinion of the panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food on a request from the commission on the toxicokinetics of bisphenol A. EFSA Journal, 759, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.759
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2008b). Statement of EFSA on a study associating bisphenol A with medical disorders. EFSA Journal, 6(10), 838. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.838
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2010a). Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA Journal, 8(6), 1637. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1637
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2010b). Scientific opinion on bisphenol A: Evaluation of a study investigating its neurodevelopmental toxicity, review of recent scientific literature on its toxicity and advice on the Danish risk assessment of Bisphenol A. EFSA Journal, 8(9), 1829. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1829
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2012). Scientific opinion on risk assessment terminology. EFSA Journal, 10(5), 2664. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2664
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2013). Meeting with member state experts on bisphenol A. EFSA Supporting Publications, 10(1), 389. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2013.EN-389
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2014). Guidance on expert knowledge elicitation in food and feed safety risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 12(6), 3734. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2015a). Report on the two-phase public consultation on the draft EFSA scientific opinion on bisphenol A (BPA). EFSA Supporting Publication, 12(1), 740. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-740
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2015b). Scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of bisphenol A (BPA) in foodstuffs. EFSA Journal, 13(1), 3978. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3978
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2017a). Bisphenol A (BPA) hazard assessment protocol. EFSA Supporting Publications, 14(12), 1354. E. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1354
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2017b). Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 15(8), 4971. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4971
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2017c). Report on the public consultation on the draft EFSA Bisphenol A (BPA) hazard assessment protocol. EFSA SUPPORTING PUBLICATION, 14(12), 1355. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1355
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2017d). Update: Guidance on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment. EFSA Journal, 15(1), 4658. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4658
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2018). Guidance on uncertainty analysis in scientific assessments. EFSA Journal, 16(1), 5123. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). (2019). Testing the study appraisal methodology from the 2017 Bisphenol A (BPA) hazard assessment protocol. EFSA Supporting Publication, 16(11), 1732. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1732
Elliott, K. (2017). A tapestry of values: An introduction to values in science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
EU RAR (European Union Risk Assessment Report). (2003). European Union risk assessment report: 4,4’-isopropylidenediphenol (Bisphenol-A). Retrieved from https://op.europa.eu/s/n7Lk
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1985). Three types of risk assessment: A methodological analysis. In C. Whipple & V. T. Covello (Eds.), Risk analysis in the private sector (pp. 217-231). New York: Plenum.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1990). Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Funtowicz, S., & Ravetz, J. (1993). Science for the post-normal age. Futures, 25(7), 739-755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-L
Gies, A., Heinzow, B., Dieter, H. H., & Heindel, J. (2009). Bisphenol a workshop of the German federal environment agency - march 30-31, 2009 work group report: Public health issues of bisphenol A. International Journal Of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 212(6), 693-696.
Gies, A., & Soto, A. M. (2013). Bisphenol A: Contested science, divergent safety evaluations. In Late lessons from early warnings: Science, precaution, innovation (pp. 20). European Environment Agency (EEA). Retrieved from https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/late-lessons-2
Heindel, J. J., Belcher, S., Flaws, J. A., Prins, G. S., Ho, S.-M., Mao, J., … Zoeller, R. T. (2020). Data integration, analysis, and interpretation of eight academic CLARITY-BPA studies. Reproductive Toxicology, 98, 29-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reprotox.2020.05.014
Jasanoff, S. (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and social order. London, UK: Routledge.
Jasanoff, S. (2007). Technologies of humility. Nature, 450,(7166), 33-33. https://doi.org/10.1038/450033a
Johansen, I. L., & Rausand, M. (2015). Ambiguity in risk assessment. Safety Science, 80, 243-251. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.07.028
KEMI (Swedish Chemicals Agency). (2012). Low-dose effects of Bisphenol A - identification of points of departure for the derivation of an alternative reference dose (PM 8/12). Retrieved from https://www.kemi.se/global/pm/2012/pm-8-12-bpa-low-dose-effects.pdf
Kortenkamp, A., Martin, O., Faust, M., Evans, R., McKinlay, R., Orton, F. & Rosivatz, E. (2011). State of the art assessment of endocrine disruptors: Final Report. European Commission. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/endocrine/pdf/sota_edc_final_report.pdf
Kovacic, Z., & Di Felice, L. J. (2019). Complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity: Implications for European Union energy governance. Energy Research & Social Science, 53, 159-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.03.005
Marres, N. (2007). The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public involvement in controversy. Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706077367
Maxim, L., & van der Sluijs, J. P. (2014). Qualichem in vivo: A tool for assessing the quality of in vivo studies and its application for bisphenol A. PloS One, 9(1), e87738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087738
Maxim, L., & van der Sluijs, J.P. (2018). Quality of epidemiological studies: Procedural rules for uncertain science for policy, a case study on bisphenol-A. Environmental Science and Policy, 84, 80-87.
McIlroy-Young, B., Leopold, A., & Öberg, G. (2021). Science, consensus, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: Rethinking disagreement in expert deliberations. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 17(2), 480-481. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4385
Munda, G., & Nardo, M. (2005). Constructing consistent composite indicators: The issue of weights. (Technical report EUR 21834 EN. 2005. JRC32434). Joint Research Centre and Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen. Retrieved from https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC32434
Myers, J. P., vom Saal, F. S., Akingbemi, B. T., Arizono, K., Belcher, S., Colborn, T., … Zoeller, R. T. (2009). Why public health agencies cannot depend on good laboratory practices as a criterion for selecting data: The case of bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(3), 309-315. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0800173
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific knowledge and its social problems. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
RIVM (Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment). (2016). Bisphenol A: Part 2. Recommendations for risk management. (RIVM Report 2015-0192). Retrieved from https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2015-0192.pdf
Rosa, E. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 15-44. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377303
Saltelli, A., & Giampietro, M. (2017). What is wrong with evidence based policy, and how can it be improved? Futures, 91, 62-71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2016.11.012
SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies). (2019). Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.26356/MASOS
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
SCF (Scientific Committee on Food). (2002). Opinion of the scientific committee on food on bisphenol A. European Commission - Health & consumer protection directorate-general. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/food/sites/food/files/safety/docs/sci-com_scf_out128_en.pdf
SRA. (2015). Society for risk analysis glossary. Retrieved from www.sra.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SRA-Glossary-FINAL.pdf
Stirling, A. (1998). Risk at a turning point? Journal of Risk Research, 1(2), 97-109. https://doi.org/10.1080/136698798377204
Stirling, A. (2003). Risk, uncertainty and precaution: Some instrumental implications from the social sciences. In F. Berkhout, M. Leach, & I. Scoones (Eds.), Negotiating environmental change: New perspectives from social science (pp. 33-76). London, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it complex. Nature, 468(7327), 1029-1031. https://doi.org/10.1038/4681029a
Stump, D. G., Beck, M. J., Radovsky, A., Garman, R. H., Freshwater, L. L., Sheets, L. P., … Hentges, S. G. (2010). Developmental neurotoxicity study of dietary bisphenol A in Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicological Sciences: An Official Journal of the Society of Toxicology, 115(1), 167-182. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfq025
Tyl, R. W., Myers, C. B., Marr, M. C., Thomas, B. F., Keimowitz, A. R., Brine, D. R., … Waechter, J. M. (2002). Three-generation reproductive toxicity study of dietary bisphenol A in CD Sprague-Dawley rats. Toxicological Sciences: An Official Journal of the Society of Toxicology, 68(1), 121-146. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/68.1.121
Tyl, R. W., Myers, C. B., Marr, M. C., Sloan, C. S., Castillo, N. P., Veselica, M. M., … Waechter, J. M., Jr (2008). Two-generation reproductive toxicity study of dietary bisphenol A in CD-1 (Swiss) mice. Toxicological sciences: An official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 104(2), 362-384. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfn084
US FDA/NCTR (National Center for Toxicological Research- National Toxicology Program). (2013). Evaluation of the toxicity of bisphenol A (BPA) in male and female Sprague-Dawley rats exposed orally from gestation day 6 through postnatal day 90.
Vandenberg, L. N., Maffini, M. V., Sonnenschein, C., Rubin, B. S., & Soto, A. M. (2009). Bisphenol-A and the great divide: A review of controversies in the field of endocrine disruption. Endocrine reviews, 30(1), 75-95. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2008-0021
Vandenberg, L. N., Hunt, P. A., Myers, J. P., & Saal, F. S. V. (2013). Human exposures to bisphenol A: Mismatches between data and assumptions. Reviews on Environmental Health, 28(1), 37-58. https://doi.org/10.1515/reveh-2012-0034
Vesnic-Alujevic, L., Breitegger, M., & Pereira, Â. G. (2016). What smart grids tell about innovation narratives in the European Union: Hopes, imaginaries and policy. Energy Research & Social Science, 12, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.11.011
von Goetz, N., Pirow, R., Hart, A., Bradley, E., Poças, F., Arcella, D., … Leclercq, C. (2017). Including non-dietary sources into an exposure assessment of the European Food Safety Authority: The challenge of multi-sector chemicals such as Bisphenol A. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 85, 70-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.02.004
Whaley, P., Aiassa, E., Beausoleil, C., Beronius, A., Bilotta, G., Boobis, A., … Halsall, C. (2020). Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER). Environment International, 143, 105926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2020.105926
Wynne, B. (1989). Frameworks of rationality in risk assessment: Towards the testing of naïve sociology. In J. Brown (Ed.), Environmental threats: Perception, analysis, management (pp. 33-47). London, UK: Frances Pinter.
Wynne, B. (1992). Uncertainty and environmental learning: Reconceiving science and policy in the preventive paradigm. Global Environmental Change, 2(2), 111-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(92)90017-2