Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, College of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, Middlesex UB8 3PH, United Kingdom(.).
UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Maclean Building, Benson Lane, Crowmarsh Gifford, Wallingford, Oxfordshire OX10 8BB, United Kingdom.
Sci Total Environ. 2022 Nov 1;845:157256. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.157256. Epub 2022 Jul 9.
The processes underpinning the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of chemicals have not changed appreciably in the last 30 years. It is unclear how successful these processes are in protecting the environment from any adverse effects of chemicals. To ascertain if the current methodology can be improved, and if so, how, we invited experts to suggest how the current ERA process could be improved. They were not asked to select from a list of suggestions. The 36 experts made 109 suggestions for improvement, which could be grouped into 33 categories. The category that received the most support, from 12 experts, was to utilise a broader range of scientific information, including all up-to-date information, in ERAs. The second most popular category, supported by 10 experts, was the suggestion to regulate mixtures of chemicals; the current regulatory process involves chemical-by-chemical assessment. Two quite radical proposals were suggested. One was to replace the regulator with artificial intelligence. The other was to establish a new competent authority that would appoint groups of experts, each including representatives of the range of stakeholders, to decide which studies were required, commission those studies, then conduct the ERA based on the results of those studies. These two radical proposals, which the authors support strongly, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We conclude that the present ERA process could be improved to better protect the environment from the myriad of chemicals in use.
化学品环境风险评估（ERA）所依据的过程在过去 30 年中并没有显著改变。目前尚不清楚这些过程在保护环境免受化学品任何不良影响方面的成效如何。为了确定当前的方法是否可以改进，如果可以，应该如何改进，我们邀请专家提出改进当前 ERA 过程的建议。我们没有要求他们从一系列建议中进行选择。这 36 名专家提出了 109 条改进建议，可以将其分为 33 类。获得最多支持（来自 12 位专家）的类别是在 ERA 中利用更广泛的科学信息，包括所有最新信息。得到 10 位专家支持的第二类建议是监管化学品混合物；目前的监管过程涉及逐个评估化学品。有两个相当激进的建议。一个是用人工智能取代监管机构。另一个是建立一个新的主管当局，该当局将任命专家组，每个组都包括一系列利益相关者的代表，以决定需要进行哪些研究，委托进行这些研究，然后根据这些研究的结果进行 ERA。作者强烈支持这两个激进的建议，它们不一定相互排斥。我们得出的结论是，目前的 ERA 过程可以得到改进，以更好地保护环境免受大量使用的化学品的影响。
