Commentary: EPA's proposed expansion of dose-response analysis is a positive step towards improving its ecological risk assessment.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) has recently proposed changes to strengthen the transparency of its pivotal regulatory science policy and procedures. In this context, the US EPA aims to enhance the transparency of dose-response data and models, proposing to consider for the first time non-linear biphasic dose-response models. While the proposed changes have the potential to lead to markedly improved ecological risk assessment compared to past and current approaches, we believe there remain open issues for improving the quality of ecological risk assessment, such as the consideration of adaptive, dynamic and interactive effects. Improved risk assessment including adaptive and dynamic non-linear models (beyond classic threshold models) can enhance the quality of regulatory decisions and the protection of ecological health. We suggest that other countries consider adopting a similar scientific-regulatory posture with respect to dose-response modeling via the inclusion of non-linear biphasic models, that incorporate the dynamic potential of biological systems to adapt (i.e., enhancing positive biological endpoints) or maladapt to low levels of stressor agents.

[1]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis commonly observed in the assessment of aneuploidy in yeast. , 2017, Environmental pollution.

[2]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Hormesis: Why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists , 2008 .

[3]  E. Nishida,et al.  Environmental stresses induce transgenerationally inheritable survival advantages via germline-to-soma communication in Caenorhabditis elegans , 2017, Nature Communications.

[4]  I. Cionni,et al.  Random Forests Analysis: a Useful Tool for Defining the Relative Importance of Environmental Conditions on Crown Defoliation , 2014, Water, Air, & Soil Pollution.

[5]  Keith Goulding,et al.  Impact of elevated precipitation, nitrogen deposition and warming on soil respiration in a temperate desert , 2017 .

[6]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  A swinging seesaw as a novel model mechanism for time-dependent hormesis under dose-dependent stimulatory and inhibitory effects: A case study on the toxicity of antibacterial chemicals to Aliivibrio fischeri. , 2018, Chemosphere.

[7]  Daqiang Yin,et al.  Novel approach to predicting hormetic effects of antibiotic mixtures on Vibrio fischeri. , 2013, Chemosphere.

[8]  Edward J Calabrese.  EPA transparency proposal: testimony of Edward J. Calabrese, Ph.D, October 3, 2018 , 2018, Journal of Cell Communication and Signaling.

[9]  C. Körner.  Plant CO2 responses: an issue of definition, time and resource supply. , 2006, The New phytologist.

[10]  Shu-Shen Liu,et al.  Predicting hormetic effects of ionic liquid mixtures on luciferase activity using the concentration addition model. , 2011, Environmental science & technology.

[11]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Emission of volatile organic compounds from plants shows a biphasic pattern within an hormetic context. , 2018, Environmental pollution.

[12]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Hormetic dose responses induced by lanthanum in plants. , 2019, Environmental pollution.

[13]  Paul Mushak,et al.  Limits to chemical hormesis as a dose-response model in health risk assessment. , 2013, The Science of the total environment.

[14]  N. Cedergreen,et al.  Hormesis in mixtures -- can it be predicted? , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[15]  Marisa Domingos,et al.  Ozone phytotoxic potential with regard to fragments of the Atlantic Semi-deciduous Forest downwind of Sao Paulo, Brazil. , 2014, Environmental pollution.

[16]  Evan P Gallagher,et al.  The role of biomarkers in the assessment of aquatic ecosystem health , 2014, Integrated environmental assessment and management.

[17]  Zachary A. Collier,et al.  Data-Driven Method to Estimate Nonlinear Chemical Equivalence , 2015, PloS one.

[18]  E J Calabrese,et al.  Radiation hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis , 2000, Human & experimental toxicology.

[19]  Elena Paoletti,et al.  Sensitivity of stomatal conductance to soil moisture: implications for tropospheric ozone , 2017 .

[20]  E J Calabrese,et al.  Chemical hormesis: its historical foundations as a biological hypothesis , 2000, Human & experimental toxicology.

[21]  Marisa Domingos,et al.  Oxidant-antioxidant balance and tolerance against oxidative stress in pioneer and non-pioneer tree species from the remaining Atlantic Forest. , 2018, The Science of the total environment.

[22]  Duk-Hee Lee,et al.  Evolutionarily adapted hormesis-inducing stressors can be a practical solution to mitigate harmful effects of chronic exposure to low dose chemical mixtures. , 2018, Environmental pollution.

[23]  Laura N Vandenberg,et al.  Assessing dose–response relationships for endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs): a focus on non-monotonicity , 2015, Environmental Health.

[24]  J F Berliner.  A NEGLECTED NOTE BY A NEGLECTED MAN. , 1927, Science.

[25]  Otilia Rogoveanu,et al.  Six months exposure to a real life mixture of 13 chemicals' below individual NOAELs induced non monotonic sex-dependent biochemical and redox status changes in rats. , 2018, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[26]  Ord,et al.  Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment , 2014 .

[27]  Jens C. Streibig,et al.  The Occurrence of Hormesis in Plants and Algae , 2007, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[28]  C. Schreck,et al.  Stress and fish reproduction: the roles of allostasis and hormesis. , 2010, General and comparative endocrinology.

[29]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Flaws in the LNT single‐hit model for cancer risk: An historical assessment , 2017, Environmental research.

[30]  Edward J. Calabrese.  The Genetics Panel of the NAS BEAR I Committee (1956): epistolary evidence suggests self-interest may have prompted an exaggeration of radiation risks that led to the adoption of the LNT cancer risk assessment model , 2014, Archives of Toxicology.

[31]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  The road to linearity: why linearity at low doses became the basis for carcinogen risk assessment , 2009, Archives of Toxicology.

[32]  E. Calabrese,et al.  The frequency of U-shaped dose responses in the toxicological literature. , 2001, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

[33]  Irene Cionni,et al.  Future impacts of nitrogen deposition and climate change scenarios on forest crown defoliation. , 2014, Environmental pollution.

[34]  Ord,et al.  Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science , 2018 .

[35]  H. Guard,et al.  Hormesis: a response to low environmental concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons. , 1981, Science.

[36]  E. Calabrese,et al.  U-shaped dose-responses in biology, toxicology, and public health. , 2001, Annual review of public health.

[37]  Julia Koricheva,et al.  Effects of elevated O3, alone and in combination with elevated CO2, on tree leaf chemistry and insect herbivore performance: a meta‐analysis , 2007 .

[38]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  The hormesis database: the occurrence of hormetic dose responses in the toxicological literature. , 2011, Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP.

[39]  Daniel C. Moreira,et al.  Is “Preparation for Oxidative Stress” a Case of Physiological Conditioning Hormesis? , 2018, Front. Physiol..

[40]  Pierre Sicard,et al.  Predicting the effect of ozone on vegetation via linear non-threshold (LNT), threshold and hormetic dose-response models. , 2019, The Science of the total environment.

[41]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Performing Ecological Risk Assessments , 1993 .

[42]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  The threshold vs LNT showdown: Dose rate findings exposed flaws in the LNT model part 1. The Russell-Muller debate. , 2017, Environmental research.

[43]  R. Guo,et al.  Single and mixture toxicities of BDE-47, 6-OH-BDE-47 and 6-MeO-BDE-47 on the feeding activity of Daphnia magna: From behavior assessment to neurotoxicity. , 2018, Chemosphere.

[44]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  Toxicology rewrites its history and rethinks its future: Giving equal focus to both harmful and beneficial effects , 2011, Environmental toxicology and chemistry.

[45]  H. Piepho,et al.  Predicting biphasic responses in binary mixtures: Pelargonic acid versus glyphosate. , 2017, Chemosphere.

[46]  Luca Fontana,et al.  Nanoparticle Exposure and Hormetic Dose–Responses: An Update , 2018, International journal of molecular sciences.

[47]  Kenneth T Bogen,et al.  Linear‐No‐Threshold Default Assumptions are Unwarranted for Cytotoxic Endpoints Independently Triggered by Ultrasensitive Molecular Switches , 2017, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[48]  Paolo F Ricci,et al.  Regulatory-Science: Biphasic Cancer Models or The Lnt—Not Just A Matter of Biology! , 2012, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[49]  Liangang Mao,et al.  Evaluation of Insecticides induced hormesis on the demographic parameters of Myzus persicae and expression changes of metabolic resistance detoxification genes , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[50]  S. Elvira,et al.  Validation of ozone response functions for annual Mediterranean pasture species using close-to-field-conditions experiments , 2017, Environmental Science and Pollution Research.

[51]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  From Muller to mechanism: How LNT became the default model for cancer risk assessment. , 2018, Environmental pollution.

[52]  S V Jargin,et al.  Hormesis and radiation safety norms: Comments for an update , 2018, Human & experimental toxicology.

[53]  Alexander S. Mikheyev,et al.  Ancestral diet leads to dynamic transgenerational plasticity for five generations in Drosophila melanogaster , 2018, bioRxiv.

[54]  H. D. Cooper,et al.  Scenarios for Global Biodiversity in the 21st Century , 2010, Science.

[55]  James E. Enstrom,et al.  Fine Particulate Matter and Total Mortality in Cancer Prevention Study Cohort Reanalysis , 2017, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[56]  Colin Seymour,et al.  Old Data—New Concepts: Integrating “Indirect Effects” Into Radiation Protection , 2018, Health physics.

[57]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  How does hormesis impact biology, toxicology, and medicine? , 2017, npj Aging and Mechanisms of Disease.

[58]  Melvin E. Andersen,et al.  Enhancing and Extending Biological Performance and Resilience , 2018, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[59]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  Human and veterinary antibiotics induce hormesis in plants: Scientific and regulatory issues and an environmental perspective. , 2018, Environment international.

[60]  Edward J Calabrese,et al.  LNTgate: How scientific misconduct by the U.S. NAS led to governments adopting LNT for cancer risk assessment. , 2016, Environmental research.

[61]  Pat Monaghan,et al.  Ecological processes in a hormetic framework. , 2010, Ecology letters.

[62]  Evgenios Agathokleous,et al.  Environmental hormesis, a fundamental non-monotonic biological phenomenon with implications in ecotoxicology and environmental safety , 2018 .

[63]  Dayanthi Nugegoda,et al.  Is the integration of hormesis and essentiality into ecotoxicology now opening Pandora's Box? , 2008, Environmental pollution.

[64]  A. Anav,et al.  A multi-sites analysis on the ozone effects on Gross Primary Production of European forests. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[65]  K. N. Yu,et al.  Hormetic effect induced by depleted uranium in zebrafish embryos. , 2016, Aquatic toxicology.

[66]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  The additive to background assumption in cancer risk assessment: A reappraisal , 2018, Environmental research.

[67]  Ana M Soto,et al.  Minireview: Endocrine Disruptors: Past Lessons and Future Directions. , 2016, Molecular endocrinology.

[68]  Zhaozhong Feng,et al.  Comparison of crop yield sensitivity to ozone between open‐top chamber and free‐air experiments , 2018, Global change biology.

[69]  Hermann J. Muller,et al.  Radiation and Genetics , 1930, The American Naturalist.

[70]  Pierre Sicard,et al.  An epidemiological assessment of stomatal ozone flux-based critical levels for visible ozone injury in Southern European forests. , 2016, The Science of the total environment.

[71]  Bill Sacks,et al.  Jan Beyea mischaracterizes the work by Siegel et al. (2016). , 2016, Environmental research.

[72]  Edward J. Calabrese,et al.  Does the root to shoot ratio show a hormetic response to stress? An ecological and environmental perspective , 2018, Journal of Forestry Research.

[73]  Kenneth T Bogen,et al.  Linear‐No‐Threshold Default Assumptions for Noncancer and Nongenotoxic Cancer Risks: A Mathematical and Biological Critique , 2016, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[74]  Jeffry A. Siegel,et al.  Preserving the Anti-Scientific Linear No-Threshold Myth: Authority, Agnosticism, Transparency, and the Standard of Care , 2017, Dose-response : a publication of International Hormesis Society.

[75]  Paul Mushak,et al.  How prevalent is chemical hormesis in the natural and experimental worlds? , 2013, The Science of the total environment.