Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35195451›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2022

Charting a Path Forward: Assessing the Science of Chemical Risk Evaluations under the Toxic Substances Control Act in the Context of Recent National Academies Recommendations.

Jennifer McPartland, Rachel M Shaffer, Mary A Fox, Keeve E Nachman, Thomas A Burke, Richard A Denison

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Natural variation suggests candidate genes underlying Caenorhabditis elegans susceptibility to diverse toxicants.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026
    Article
  5. Natural variation suggests candidate genes underlyingbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Science and Policy.Policy insights from the behavioral and brain sciences · 2023
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jennifer McPartlandEnvironmental Defense Fund, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8772-9106
Rachel M ShafferDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, Washington, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2917-7865
Mary A FoxDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6895-5629
Keeve E NachmanDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4925-4151
Thomas A BurkeDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Richard A DenisonEnvironmental Defense Fund, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2016, Congress enacted the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act ("the Lautenberg Act"), which made major revisions to the main U.S. chemical safety law, the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Among other reforms, the Lautenberg Act mandates that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) conduct comprehensive risk evaluations of chemicals in commerce. The U.S. EPA recently finalized the first set of such chemical risk evaluations.

objectivesWe examine the first 10 TSCA risk evaluations in relation to risk science recommendations from the National Academies to determine consistency with these recommendations and to identify opportunities to improve future TSCA risk evaluations by further implementing these key approaches and methods. DISCUSSION: Our review of the first set of TSCA risk evaluations identified substantial deviations from best practices in risk assessment, including overly narrow problem formulations and scopes; insufficient characterization of uncertainty in the evidence; inadequate consideration of population variability; lack of consideration of background exposures, combined exposures, and cumulative risk; divergent approaches to dose-response assessment for carcinogens and noncarcinogens; and a flawed approach to systematic review. We believe these deviations result in underestimation of population exposures and health risks. We are hopeful that the agency can use these insights and have provided suggestions to produce chemical risk evaluations aligned with the intent and requirements of the Lautenberg Act and the best available science to better protect health and the environment-including the health of those most vulnerable to chemical exposures. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP9649.

Indexed as

United States Environmental Protection AgencyRisk AssessmentUnited States

Identifiers

PMID35195451
PMCPMC8865089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.