It's our belief, and the belief of many, that we need a risk-based assessment. I'll speak about it from a crop-protection perspective and what the Pest Control Products Act does, which is very extensive.
Companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in pre-market assessments, which brings in a critical component, and that is exposure.
There's a long list of hazards to our health. I have IARC's list of known carcinogens here: coffee, alcoholic beverages, sunshine—
For potential hazards, there is a long list, but you do need to bring into consideration exposure to those hazards to understand that risk. My view would be that we should have a system that takes a look at the toxicity of compounds as well as exposure.
In the case of crop protection products, it makes many assumptions about maximum levels of exposure, high-risk populations, the length of lifetimes, and multiple safety factors are built in. I believe a risk-based approach that looks at exposure is key.
A hazard-based approach can lead to confusion, and I would cite IARC. Some examples are cellphones and brain cancer, and processed meats and exposure. There are more recent headlines coming out of it that I think can confuse people as to what the risk is at a consumer level.
I think risk-based approaches that bring into account actual exposure are an important part of understanding what should be noted as a concern.