Alternatives assessment: An analysis on progress and future needs for research and practice.

Alternatives assessment is a science-policy approach to support the informed substitution of chemicals of concern in consumer products and industries, with the intent of avoiding regrettable substitution and facilitating the transition to safer, more sustainable chemicals and products. The field of alternatives assessment has grown steadily in recent decades, particularly after the publication of specific frameworks and the inclusion of substitution and alternatives assessment requirements in a number of policy contexts. Previously, 14 research and practice needs for the field were outlined across five critical areas: comparative hazard assessment, comparative exposure characterization, lifecycle considerations, decision-making and decision analysis, and professional practice. The aim of the current article is twofold: to highlight methodological advances in the growing field of alternatives assessment based on identified research and practice needs and to propose areas for future developments. We assess advances in the field based on the analysis of a broad literature review that captured 154 sources published from 2013 to 2022. The results indicate that research conducted advanced many of the needs identified, but several remain underaddressed. Although the field has clearly grown and taken root over the past decade, there are still research and practice gaps, most notably on the hazard assessment of mixtures or different forms of chemicals, the integration of lifecycle considerations, and the development of practical approaches to address trade-offs in decision-making. We propose modifications to four of the prior research and practice needs in addition to new needs, including the development of standardized hazard assessment approaches for chemical mixtures as well as better integration of equity and/or justice considerations into assessments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;00:1-18. © 2023 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Alternatives Assessment Frameworks: Research Needs for the Informed Substitution of Hazardous Chemicals.

BACKGROUND: Given increasing pressures for hazardous chemical replacement, there is growing interest in alternatives assessment to avoid substituting a toxic chemical with another of equal or greater concern. Alternatives assessment is a process for identifying, comparing, and selecting safer alternatives to chemicals of concern (including those used in materials, processes, or technologies) on the basis of their hazards, performance, and economic viability. OBJECTIVES: The purposes of this substantive review of alternatives assessment frameworks are to identify consistencies and differences in methods and to outline needs for research and collaboration to advance science policy practice. METHODS: This review compares methods used in six core components of these frameworks: hazard assessment, exposure characterization, life-cycle impacts, technical feasibility evaluation, economic feasibility assessment, and decision making. Alternatives assessment frameworks published from 1990 to 2014 were included. RESULTS: Twenty frameworks were reviewed. The frameworks were consistent in terms of general process steps, but some differences were identified in the end points addressed. Methodological gaps were identified in the exposure characterization, life-cycle assessment, and decision-analysis components. Methods for addressing data gaps remain an issue. DISCUSSION: Greater consistency in methods and evaluation metrics is needed but with sufficient flexibility to allow the process to be adapted to different decision contexts. CONCLUSION: Although alternatives assessment is becoming an important science policy field, there is a need for increased cross-disciplinary collaboration to refine methodologies in support of the informed substitution and design of safer chemicals, materials, and products. Case studies can provide concrete lessons to improve alternatives assessment.

Advancing safer alternatives through functional substitution.

To achieve the ultimate goal of sustainable chemicals management policy­the transition to safer chemicals, materials, products, and processes­current chemicals management approaches could benefit from a broader perspective. Starting with considerations of function, rather than characterizing and managing risks associated with a particular chemical, may provide a different, solutions-oriented lens to reduce risk associated with the uses of chemicals. It may also offer an efficient means, complementing existing tools, to reorient chemicals management approaches from time-intensive risk assessment and risk management based on single chemicals to comparative evaluation of the best options to fulfill a specific function. This article describes a functional approach to chemicals management we call "functional substitution" that encourages decision-makers to look beyond chemical by chemical substitution to find a range of alternatives to meet product performance. We define functional substitution, outline a rationale for greater use of this concept when considering risks posed by uses of chemicals, and provide examples of how functional approaches have been applied toward the identification of alternatives. We also discuss next steps for implementing functional substitution in chemical assessment and policy development.

Categorizing mistaken false positives in regulation of human and environmental health.

One of the concerns often voiced by critics of the precautionary principle is that a widespread regulatory application of the principle will lead to a large number of false positives (i.e., over-regulation of minor risks and regulation of nonexisting risks). The present article proposes a general definition of a regulatory false positive, and seeks to identify case studies that can be considered authentic regulatory false positives. Through a comprehensive review of the science policy literature for proclaimed false positives and interviews with authorities on regulation and the precautionary principle we identified 88 cases. Following a detailed analysis of these cases, we found that few of the cases mentioned in the literature can be considered to be authentic false positives. As a result, we have developed a number of different categories for these cases of "mistaken false positives," including: real risks, "The jury is still out," nonregulated proclaimed risks, "Too narrow a definition of risk," and risk-risk tradeoffs. These categories are defined and examples are presented in order to illustrate their key characteristics. On the basis of our analysis, we were able to identify only four cases that could be defined as regulatory false positives in the light of today's knowledge and recognized uncertainty: the Southern Corn Leaf Blight, the Swine Flu, Saccharin, and Food Irradiation in relation to consumer health. We conclude that concerns about false positives do not represent a reasonable argument against future application of the precautionary principle.

The U.S. experience in promoting sustainable chemistry.

BACKGROUND, AIM AND SCOPE: Recent developments in European chemicals policy, including the Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) proposal, provide a unique opportunity to examine the U.S. experience in promoting sustainable chemistry as well as the strengths and weaknesses of existing policies. Indeed, the problems of industrial chemicals and limitations in current regulatory approaches to address chemical risks are strikingly similar on both sides of the Atlantic. We provide an overview of the U.S. regulatory system for chemicals management and its relationship to efforts promoting sustainable chemistry. We examine federal and state initiatives and examine lessons learned from this system that can be applied to developing more integrated, sustainable approaches to chemicals management. MAIN FEATURES: There is truly no one U.S. chemicals policy, but rather a series of different un-integrated policies at the federal, regional, state and local levels. While centerpiece U.S. Chemicals Policy, the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, has resulted in the development of a comprehensive, efficient rapid screening process for new chemicals, agency action to manage existing chemicals has been very limited. The agency, however, has engaged in a number of successful, though highly underfunded, voluntary data collection, pollution prevention, and sustainable design programs that have been important motivators for sustainable chemistry. Policy innovation in the establishment of numerous state level initiatives on persistent and bioaccumulative toxics, chemical restrictions and toxics use reduction have resulted in pressure on the federal government to augment its efforts. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that data collection on chemical risks and phase-outs of the most egregious chemicals alone will not achieve the goals of sustainable chemistry. These alone will also not internalize the cultural and institutional changes needed to ensure that design and implementation of safer chemicals, processes, and products are the focus of the future. Thus, a more holistic approach of 'carrots and sticks'--that involves not just chemical producers but those who use and purchase chemicals is necessary. Some important lessons of the US experience in chemicals management include: (1) the need for good information on chemicals flows, toxic risks, and safer substances.; (2) the need for comprehensive planning processes for chemical substitution and reduction to avoid risk trade-offs and ensure product quality; (3) the need for technical and research support to firms for innovation in safer chemistry; and (4) the need for rapid screening processes and tools for comparison of alternative chemicals, materials, and products.

Commentary: barriers and opportunities to changing the research agenda to support precaution and primary prevention.

Conceptual research to define the Precautionary Principle and its role in science, science policy, and public health is making substantial progress. In September 2001, participants at the International Summit on Science and the Precautionary Principle developed a vision for science to address the complexity of contemporary health risks in a way that could lead to more precautionary, preventive decisions under uncertainty. Its components include: 1) a more effective linkage between research on hazards and research on primary prevention; 2) increased use of interdisciplinary approaches including better integration of qualitative and quantitative data; 3) innovative methods for analyzing cumulative and interactive effects, populations and systems and vulnerable sub-populations; 4) systems for continuous monitoring to avoid unintended consequences of actions and to identify early warnings of risks; 5) more comprehensive techniques for analyzing and communicating hazards and uncertainties; and 6) a more dynamic interface between science and policy. This article addresses barriers and opportunities to the practical application of this vision for science. Scientists in many fields have recognized the need for innovative approaches and tools to address increasingly complex, uncertain risks of a global scale. While opportunities to apply precautionary concepts in the research agenda exist, public health scientists must be cognizant of current and emerging barriers in the research agenda that balance the research focus on characterizing proximate causal mechanisms of disease, to the detriment of research and policy to support primary prevention.

The precautionary principle: protecting public health, the environment and the future of our children

The purpose of this publication is to provide the background rationale and support for WHO's working paper Dealing with uncertainty – how can the precautionary principle help protect the future of our children?, prepared for the Fourth Ministerial Conference on Environment and Health held in Budapest, Hungary, in June 2004. The debate around the precautionary principle has provided many insights into how to improve public health decision-making under conditions of uncertainty. This publication should further support approaches to attaining the concurrent goals of protecting adults, children and future generations and the ecosystems on which we depend and enhancing economic development, sustainability and innovation in science, research and policy.

Precaution, environmental science, and preventive public policy.

The Lowell Center for Sustainable Production has sought to engage scientists, policy-makers, advocates, and students in a broad public discussion about whether the tools and methods of environmental science and its integration in policy are adequate to address complex, highly uncertain environmental and health risks. It did so in an International Summit on Science and the Precautionary Principle and a recent collection of analyses stemming from the summit. Here, the author summarizes some summit recommendations to overcome barriers and build momentum for a vision for science and policy that better reflects uncertainty and complexity in natural systems. Appended is a summit statement on the subject.

Developing scientific and policy methods that support precautionary action in the face of uncertainty--the Institute of Medicine Committee on Agent Orange.

To be precautionary, decisions must be made to prevent the impacts of potentially harmful activities even though the nature and magnitude of harm have not been proven scientifically. The Institute of Medicine's Committee on the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposures to Herbicides provides a novel example of science and policy structures that support precautionary action in the face of uncertainty. What makes this example unique is the clear set of precautionary decision rules that lowered the standard for evidence, which formed the basis for policy. These rules, established by Congress, strongly influenced the way scientific information was weighed and the subsequent compensation decisions. They encouraged committee members to think outside the confines of their disciplines and develop new tools and methods to fit their unique mandate. The result was a methodology, supported by strong institutional structures, that allowed scientists to discuss the evidence as a whole, reach decisions as a group, and clarify uncertainties.