Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36656107›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science & technology2023

Optimizing Chemicals Management in the United States and Canada through the Essential-Use Approach.

Simona A Bǎlan, David Q Andrews, Arlene Blum, Miriam L Diamond, Seth Rojello Fernández, Elizabeth Harriman, Andrew B Lindstrom, Anna Reade, Lauren Richter, Rebecca Sutton and 2 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science & technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Public Health Risks of PFAS-Related Immunotoxicity Are Real.Current environmental health reports · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
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

12 authors.

Simona A BǎlanCalifornia Department of Toxic Substances Control, Sacramento, California 95814, United States.
David Q AndrewsEnvironmental Working Group, Washington, D.C. 20005, United States.
Arlene BlumUniversity of California, Berkeley, California 94720, United States.
Miriam L DiamondUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-6296-6431
Seth Rojello FernándezGreen Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States.
Elizabeth HarrimanUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 01852, United States.
Andrew B LindstromIndependent consultant, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516, United States.
Anna ReadeNatural Resources Defense Council, San Francisco, California 94104, United States.
Lauren RichterUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3B1, Canada.
Rebecca SuttonSan Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, California 94804, United States.
Zhanyun WangEmpa-Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Technology and Society Laboratory, 9014 St. Gallen, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-9914-7659
Carol F KwiatkowskiGreen Science Policy Institute, Berkeley, California 94709, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5289-1218

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chemicals have improved the functionality and convenience of industrial and consumer products, but sometimes at the expense of human or ecological health. Existing regulatory systems have proven to be inadequate for assessing and managing the tens of thousands of chemicals in commerce. A different approach is urgently needed to minimize ongoing production, use, and exposures to hazardous chemicals. The premise of the essential-use approach is that chemicals of concern should be used only in cases in which their function in specific products is necessary for health, safety, or the functioning of society and when feasible alternatives are unavailable. To optimize the essential-use approach for broader implementation in the United States and Canada, we recommend that governments and businesses (1) identify chemicals of concern for essentiality assessments based on a broad range of hazard traits, going beyond toxicity; (2) expedite decision-making by avoiding unnecessary assessments and strategically asking up to three questions to determine whether the use of the chemical in the product is essential; (3) apply the essential-use approach as early as possible in the process of developing and assessing chemicals; and (4) engage diverse experts in identifying chemical uses and functions, assessing alternatives, and making essentiality determinations and share such information broadly. If optimized and expanded into regulatory systems in the United States and Canada, other policymaking bodies, and businesses, the essential-use approach can improve chemicals management and shift the market toward safer chemistries that benefit human and ecological health.

Indexed as

Hazardous SubstancesCanadaHumansRisk AssessmentUnited StatesHazardous Substancesalternatives assessmentchemical regulationchemicals managementchemicals of concernenvironmental social and corporate governancePFASrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID36656107
PMCPMC9893722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.