Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:19:31.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comment on Risk versus Hazard – How to Regulate in the 21st Century

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Dennis Paustenbach  and
Julie Panko
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In this issue of the journal, Dr. Ragnar Lofstedt examines the current state of the EU regulatory framework with respect to chemicals and illustrates how the hazard-based approach sealed the fate of two important chemicals in the EU market-place. He also explores how the attitudes, technical knowledge and economic influences of the individual member states determine the outcome of environmental and chemical regulations. Lastly, Dr. Lofstedt provides some recommendations to improve consistency in the European regulatory process and ensure greater scientific, as well as, risk-based regulations.

Type
Symposium on Risk versus Hazard
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 193 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 National Research Council, “Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process” (the Red Book), (Washington, DC: National Academy Press 1983).

2 Paustenbach, D.J., The Risk Assessment of Environmental Hazards: A Textbook of Case Studies (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1989), pp. 1157Google Scholar (34 chapters by 51 contributors); Paustenbach, , Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: Theory and Practice (New York: John Wiley and Sons 2002), pp. 1556 (33 chapters by 50 contributors)Google Scholar.

3 Nordlander, K., Simon, C. and Pearson, H., “Hazard v. Risk in EU Chemicals Regulation”, 1(3) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2010), pp. 230–250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 Lehrer, J., “The Truth Wears Off – Is there something wrong with the Scientific Method?”, The New Yorker, December 2010, pp. 52–57 Google Scholar.

5 Schooler, J., “Unpublished Results Hide the Decline Effect”, 470 Nature (2011), p. 437 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 National Research Council, “Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA” (Washington, DC: National Academy Press 2009), pp. 403.

7 Paustenbach, , “Retrospective on U.S. Health Risk Assessment: How Others Can Benefit”, 6 RISK: Health, Safety & Environment (1995), pp. 283–332 Google Scholar; Graham, John and Wiener, Jonathan (eds), Risk Versus Risk: Tradeoffs in Protecting Health and the Environment (Harvard Univ. Press 1995)Google Scholar; NRC (1996); NRC (2009), supra note 6.