Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31808106›Full record

ReviewAmbio2020

Socio-economic analysis in REACH restriction dossiers for chemicals management: A critical review.

Silke Gabbert, Isabel Hilber

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Ambio, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Silke GabbertDepartment of Social Sciences, Environmental Economics and Natural Resources Group, Wageningen University & Research, Hollandseweg 1, 6700 EW, Wageningen, The Netherlands. silke.gabbert@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6684-9486
Isabel HilberAgroscope, Reckenholzstrasse 191, 8046, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper offers a critical review of socio-economic analysis (SEA) in Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) restriction dossiers. We examine the conceptual setup of SEA and identify the methods used for impact assessment. Moreover, we analyse the outcomes of quantitative impact assessment across restriction dossiers and substance groups. We find that impact assessment has largely focused on economic and health impacts. Environmental, social, wider economic and distributional impacts have either been evaluated qualitatively or not at all. While this can be explained by the specific scope of the proposed restriction or by lacking data, we also observe a lack of approaches for environmental and health impact assessment. This underlines the need to develop integrated methods that transform information about chemical effects and risks into impacts and, ultimately, into benefits and damages. Furthermore, to strengthen the function of SEA as decision-support tool in REACH restriction procedures, a comparative SEA of at least two alternative restriction options should be the default.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthEnvironmental PollutantsData AccuracyHumansRisk AssessmentSocioeconomic FactorsEnvironmental PollutantsImpact assessmentREACHRegulationRestriction of chemicalsRisk managementSocio-economic analysis

Identifiers

PMID31808106
PMCPMC7239982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.