Risk Assessment For Benefits Analysis: Framework for Analysis of A Thyroid-Disrupting Chemical

Abstract

Benefit-cost analysis is of growing importance in developing policies to reduce exposures to environmental contaminants. To quantify health benefits of reduced exposures, economists generally rely on dose-response relationships estimated by risk assessors. Further, to be useful for benefits analysis, the endpoints that are quantified must be expressed as changes in incidence of illnesses or symptoms that are readily understood by and perceptible to the layperson. For most noncancer health effects and for nonlinear carcinogens, risk assessments generally do not provide the dose-response functions necessary for economic benefits analysis. This article presents the framework for a case study that addresses these issues through a combination of toxicology, epidemiology, statistics, and economics. The case study assesses a chemical that disrupts proper functioning of the thyroid gland, and considers the benefits of reducing exposures in terms of both noncancer health effects (hypothyroidism) and thyroid cancers. The effects are presumed to be due to a mode of action involving interference with thyroid–pituitary functioning that would lead to nonlinear dose response. The framework integrates data from animal testing, statistical modeling, human data from the medical and epidemiological literature, and economic methodologies and valuation studies. This interdisciplinary collaboration differs from the more typical approach in which risk assessments and economic analyses are prepared independently of one another. This framework illustrates particular approaches that may be useful for expanded quantification of adverse health effects, and demonstrates the potential of such interdisciplinary approaches. Detailed implementation of the case study framework will be presented in future publications.

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the contributions of Rick Hertzberg, Anna Lowit, and Paul White to the development of the framework for the Chemical T case study, and the expert review provided by Matt Heberling and Glenn Suter.

Views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.