Response to Panko et al. (2016): Chemical hazard assessment tool comparisons.

DEAR EDITOR: In the study “A Comparative Evaluation of Five Hazard Screening Tools,” Panko et al. (this issue) set out to evaluate whether select chemical hazard assessment tools result in similar hazard and toxicity profiles for 7 chemicals. Their results indicate that “tool classifications of the same chemical varied widely between the tools, ranging from little or no hazard or toxicity to very high hazard or toxicity,” seeming to imply that the results from these different assessment approaches should be identical. In response to this conclusion and implication, scientists at Clean Production Action (CPA), the developers of GreenScreen for Safer Chemicals (GreenScreen), one of the chemical hazard assessment “tools” included in the study, undertook a critical evaluation of Panko et al.’s (this issue) study and we present our findings in this letter. Although we support research to help guide how to use various chemical assessment tools to inform safer product chemistry, we strongly believe that there is cause to be skeptical of Panko et al.’s findings because of a clear lack of due diligence by the authors to follow upwith tool developers as necessary, as well as errors in the correct interpretation of criteria underlying specific tools. In this letter, we present evidence that conclusions were drawn based on erroneous information and improper application of the evaluated tools.