A unified approach to risk assessment for cancer and noncancer endpoints based on benchmark doses and uncertainty/safety factors.

A fundamental goal of toxicology is to determine safe levels of human exposure to toxic substances. In the absence of information to establish dose-response relationships at low exposure levels generally experienced by humans, high-dose to low-dose linear extrapolation is generally used for estimating carcinogenic risks and the no-observed-adverse-effect-level divided by uncertainty (safety) factors is widely used for establishing human exposure guidelines for noncancer effects. The basis and impact of this dichotomy is examined and questioned. It is proposed that a unified approach be adopted for establishing human exposure guidelines for both cancer and noncancer endpoints. It is suggested that a lower confidence limit on the dose estimated to produce an excess incidence of adverse health effects in 10% of the individuals in a human study or 10% of the animals in laboratory experiments be used as a point-of-departure. This dose would be divided by appropriate uncertainty factors to establish human exposure guidelines. For severe irreversible adverse health effects we suggest a total default uncertainty factor (divisor) for animal data on the order of 10,000, which is comparable to current guidelines. For reversible biological effects a smaller default uncertainty factor on the order of 1000 may be employed. This is comparable to the divisor often used currently when the point-of-departure is the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level. It is asserted that the toxicological information generally available does not warrant numerical estimates of risk at low levels of human exposure. Rather, we support a unified approach for all adverse health effects of dividing a benchmark dose by appropriate uncertainty factors to establish guidelines for human exposures to toxic substances.