Policy relevant results from an expert elicitation on the health risks of phthalates

BackgroundThe EU 6th Framework Program (FP)-funded Health and Environment Network (HENVINET) aimed to support informed policy making by facilitating the availability of relevant knowledge on different environmental health issues. An approach was developed by which scientific agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps could be efficiently identified, and expert advice prepared in a way that is usable for policy makers. There were two aims of the project: 1) to apply the tool to a relevant issue; the potential health impacts of the widely used plasticizers, phthalates, and 2) to evaluate the method and the tool by asking both scientific experts and the target audience, namely policy makers and stakeholders, for their opinions.MethodsThe tool consisted of an expert consultation in several steps on the issue of phthalates in environmental health. A diagram depicting the cause-effect chain, from the production and use of phthalates to potential health impacts, was prepared based on existing reviews. This was used as a basis for an online questionnaire, through which experts in the field were consulted. The results of this first round of consultation laid the foundation for a new questionnaire answered by an expert panel that, subsequently, also discussed approaches and results in a workshop. One major task of the expert panel was to pinpoint priorities from the cause-effect chain according to their impact on the extent of potential health risks and their relevance for reducing uncertainty. The results were condensed into a policy brief that was sent to policy makers and stakeholders for their evaluation.ResultsThe experts agreed about the substantial knowledge gaps within the field of phthalates. The top three priorities for further research and policy action were: 1) intrauterine exposure, 2) reproductive toxicology, and 3) exposure from medical devices. Although not all relevant information from the cause-effect chain is known for phthalates, most experts thought that there are enough indications to justify a precautionary approach and to restrict their general use. Although some of the experts expressed some scepticism about such a tool, most felt that important issues were highlighted.ConclusionsThe approach used was an efficient way at summarising priority knowledge gaps as a starting point for health risk assessment of compounds, based on their relevance for the risk assessment outcome. We conclude that this approach is useful for supporting policy makers with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge weighed by experts. The method can assist future evidence-based policy making.

[1]  Erik Lebret,et al.  Expert elicitation on ultrafine particles: likelihood of health effects and causal pathways , 2009, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[2]  V. Pak,et al.  Controversy: NEONATAL EXPOSURE TO PLASTICIZERS IN THE NICU , 2007, MCN. The American journal of maternal child nursing.

[3]  Erik Ropstad,et al.  Reproductive and Developmental Toxicity of Phthalates , 2009, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[4]  A. Bartoňová,et al.  Chlorpyrifos and neurodevelopmental effects: a literature review and expert elicitation on research and policy , 2012, Environmental Health.

[5]  Milind Kandlikar,et al.  Expressions of likelihood and confidence in the IPCC uncertainty assessment process , 2007 .

[6]  Alena Bartonova,et al.  We’re only in it for the knowledge? A problem solving turn in environment and health expert elicitation , 2012, Environmental Health.

[7]  Michael A. Kamrin,et al.  Phthalate Risks, Phthalate Regulation, and Public Health: A Review , 2009, Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews.

[8]  Bert Brunekreef,et al.  Concentration response functions for ultrafine particles and all-cause mortality and hospital admissions: results of a European expert panel elicitation. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  M. J. Wierman,et al.  An information theoretic measure for the evaluation of ordinal scale data , 2006, Behavior research methods.

[10]  Erik Lebret,et al.  The use of expert elicitation in environmental health impact assessment: a seven step procedure , 2010, Environmental health : a global access science source.

[11]  T. Schettler,et al.  Human exposure to phthalates via consumer products. , 2006, International journal of andrology.

[12]  A. Calafat,et al.  PHTHALATES AND HUMAN HEALTH , 2005, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[13]  R. Hauser,et al.  Science linking environmental contaminant exposures with fertility and reproductive health impacts in the adult male. , 2008, Fertility and sterility.

[14]  Elizabeth A. Casman,et al.  Elicitation of Expert Judgments of Uncertainty in the Risk Assessment of Herbicide‐Tolerant Oilseed Crops , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[15]  Matthias Kaiser,et al.  Diagnosing and prioritizing uncertainties according to their relevance for policy: the case of transgene silencing. , 2008, The Science of the total environment.

[16]  Paul Tobback,et al.  Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in contact with Food (AFC) on a request from the Commission , 2008 .

[17]  R. Cooke Experts in Uncertainty: Opinion and Subjective Probability in Science , 1991 .

[18]  Volker Mersch-Sundermann,et al.  Phthalates: toxicology and exposure. , 2007, International journal of hygiene and environmental health.

[19]  A. Bartoňová,et al.  Policy relevant Results from an Expert Elicitation on the Human Health Risks of Decabromodiphenyl ether (decaBDE) and Hexabromocyclododecane (HBCD) , 2012, Environmental Health.