< Intersol | Marc Valois
- 1 Precaution Resources
- 2 Weight of Evidence
- 2.1 Abstract
- 2.2 BC Ministry of Environment
- 2.3 Bisphenol A | San Francisco Repeals Ban on Children's Products ...
- 2.4 Muskoka District Health Unit
- 2.5 Environmental Health Perspectives
- 2.6 National Toxicology Program, USA
- 2.7 Findings of the Flouride Expert Panel, Health Canada
- 2.8 Canadian Expert Panel on Tobacco and Breast Cancer Risk
Searching Keywords & Phrases
- Wikipedia Entry - Precautionary Principle
- Sustainability Council of New Zealand, Environmental Risk & Precaution
- Soil & Health Association of NZ
- European Environmental Bureau (EEB), and Paper on the Precautionary Principle
- Commission of the European Communities: White Paper Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy
- Resolutions from the European Council of Nice, December 2000 (precautionary principle)
- European Food Safety Authority Precautionary Advice to Vulnerable Groups]
The European Food Safety Authority’s (EFSA) Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) published today an opinion regarding the possible risks to human health associated with the consumption of foods contaminated with mercury.
- Terms of Reference for the Toxic Reduction Scientific Expert Panel: Ministry of the Environment (Ontario)
- Precautionary Expertise for GM Crops
- Precautionary Expertise for GM Crops, EU-level Report - EU Regulation of Agri-biotechnology: Precautionary Links between Science and Policy (2005) Download PDF
- Precautionary Expertise for GM Crops (PEG) - EU Workshop Report (2003) Download PDF
- Royal Society Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology, Canada Food Inspection Agency
In December 1999, the Ministers of Agriculture and Agri-Food, Environment, and Health announced the establishment of a Royal Society of Canada expert panel to examine future scientific developments in food biotechnology. The independent panel was asked to provide impartial expert advice on the science capacity needed to continue to assure the safety of new biotechnology-derived food products. The Royal Society released its Report to the public in February 2001.
Environmental, Chemical References
- Keyword Search: precautionary advice scientific panel chemical
- Royal Society of Chemistry (UK) to the Science and Technical Committee of the House of Commons (UK)
- California's Green Chemistry Initiative
Through the Green Chemistry Initiative, administered by Cal/EPA's Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), California intends to create a comprehensive list of toxic chemicals made, used and sold in the state and seeks to replace them, when practicable, with "greener" alternatives. The state seeks to advance green chemistry by encouraging the redesign of products, manufacturing processes and approaches. Finally, the initiative would require greater disclosure of chemical risks by those who manufacture and sell products containing toxic chemicals. On December 16, 2008, DTSC released its long-awaited final report on the initiative, requesting that the state implement various recommendations to promote green chemistry.
The Governor charged the state Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to make recommendations. The DTSC released an initial compilation of options in January of 2008. In June, a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) followed up with 38 additional options on chemical education, research, policy and regulation.
Weight of Evidence
- Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches, at Science Direct.
Authors are from:
- aUS Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd, Vicksburg, MS 39180, United States
- bMassachussetts Institute of Technology, 77 Massachusetts Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139-4307, United States
- cUS Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268, United States
- dHarvard University School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 29 Oxford St., Cambridge, MA 02138, United States
Assessments of human health and ecological risk draw upon multiple types and sources of information, requiring the integration of multiple lines of evidence before conclusions may be reached. Risk assessors often make use of weight-of-evidence (WOE) approaches to perform the integration, whether integrating evidence concerning potential carcinogenicity, toxicity, and exposure from chemicals at a contaminated site, or evaluating processes concerned with habitat loss or modification when managing a natural resource. Historically, assessors have relied upon qualitative WOE approaches, such as professional judgment, or limited quantitative methods, such as direct scoring, to develop conclusions from multiple lines of evidence. Current practice often lacks transparency resulting in risk estimates lacking quantified uncertainty. This paper reviews recent applications of weight of evidence used in human health and ecological risk assessment. Applications are sorted based on whether the approach relies on qualitative and quantitative methods in order to reveal trends in the use of the term weight of evidence, especially as a means to facilitate structured and transparent development of risk conclusions from multiple lines of evidence.
Weight of evidence; Environmental risk assessment; Ecological risk assessment; Human health risk assessment; Multi-criteria decision analysis
BC Ministry of Environment
Government of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Environmental Protection Division, Regional Operations Branch
Bisphenol A | San Francisco Repeals Ban on Children's Products ...
The repeal brings San Francisco in line with government bodies around the world that ... 1; An expert scientific panel weight-of-the-evidence evaluation of ...
Muskoka District Health Unit
Municipal Water Flouridation (pdf) sent to Marc