When discussing recent high-profile industrial chemical spills in places such as East Palestine, Ohio, and Philadelphia, the first step in public health response is identifying the harm these chemicals pose, according to Lisa Bero, PhD.
“Harm is something that I think gets conflated with safety,” said Bero, a research professor with the Colorado School of Public Health’s Department of Health Systems, Management & Policy and chief scientist for the Center for Bioethics and Humanities. “Established levels for a chemical’s harm don’t necessarily mean that if you’re slightly outside that level, it’s safe. And it further depends on the data as well, which is always limited.”
For example, liver toxicity studies are often done acutely – high levels of exposure in a short period of time – rather than at lower levels over an extended period, Bero said.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is currently working to update its internal review process, helping to ensure better scientific procedures are followed when identifying chemical harm risks. Bero recently chaired a National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine committee that offered recommendations to improve the EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) handbook – a document that establishes a chemical’s hazard and harm potential.
“IRIS assessments are very influential because they do two things: establish whether a chemical is a hazard or not, and establish a level, if they can, at which the chemical would be harmful,” Bero said, noting that the handbook does not set mitigation policy, a task of another EPA section.
In the following Q&A, Bero details how the new EPA systematic approach will reduce bias in examining chemical studies to better protect human and environmental health following an industrial spill.