Cited by 149Health, Environment, Cognitive AgingEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyEnvironmental and Social Impact Assessments

If Cumulative Risk Assessment Is the Answer, What Is the Question?

Open access
Callahan, Michael A., Sexton, Ken·2007·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Cumulative risk refers to the combined threats from exposure via all relevant routes to multiple stressors including biological, chemical, physical, and psychosocial entities. Cumulative risk assessment is a tool for organizing and analyzing information to examine, characterize, and possibly quantify the combined adverse effects on human health or ecologic resources from multiple environmental stressors. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated a long-term effort to develop future guidelines for cumulative risk assessment, including publication in 2003 of a framework that describes important features of the process and discusses theoretical issues, technical matters, and key definitions. The framework divides the process of cumulative risk assessment into three interrelated phases: a) planning, scoping, and problem formulation; b) analysis; and c) interpretation and risk characterization. It also discusses the additional complexities introduced by attempts to analyze cumulative risks from multiple stressors and describes some of the theoretical approaches that can be used. The development of guidelines for cumulative risk assessment is an essential element in the transition of the U.S. EPA risk assessment methodology from a narrow focus on a single stressor, end point, source, pathway, and exposure route to a broader, more holistic approach involving analysis of combined effects of cumulative exposure to multiple stressors via all relevant sources, pathways, and routes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1289/ehp.9330

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Formal risk assessment methodology is constantly changing in response to new technologies, evolving and emerging environmental challenges, and ever-changing societal pressures.

    “Formal risk assessment methodology is constantly changing in response to new technologies, evolving and emerging environmental challenges, and ever-changing societal pressures.”

    From North American Wetlands and Mosquito Control (2012) · cites this paper as [114]

  • Most current risk assessment frameworks assume that risk can be measured and expressed quantitatively.

    “Even though “risk” is not necessarily a quantifiable entity, most current risk assessment frameworks assume that risk can be measured and expressed quantitatively [114].”

    From North American Wetlands and Mosquito Control (2012) · cites this paper as [114]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Barnthouse LW Marmorek DR Peters CN 2000. Assessment of multiple stresses at regional scales. In: Multiple-Stressors in Ecological Risk and Impact Assessment: Approaches to Risk Estimation (Ferenc S, Foran J, eds). Pensacola, FL:SETAC Press.
  2. Bernstein PL 1997. Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk. New York:John Wiley & Sons.
  3. Breyer S 1993. Breaking the Vicious Circle: Toward Effective Risk Regulation. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
  4. Bryant B Mohai P eds. 1992. Race and Incidence of Environmental Hazards: A Time for Discourse. Boulder, CO:Westview Press.
  5. Colborn T Dumanoski D Meyers JP 1997. Our Stolen Future. New York:Plume/Penguin Books.
  6. Institute of Medicine 1999. Toward Environmental Justice: Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs. Washington, DC:Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press. 23035313
  7. Jasanoff S 1991. Acceptable evidence in a pluralistic society. In: Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management (Mayo DG, Hollander RD, eds). New York:Oxford University Press.
  8. Kasperson RE Kasperson JX 1991. Hidden hazards. In: Acceptable Evidence: Science and Values in Risk Management. (Mayo DG, Hollander RD, eds). New York:Oxford University Press, 9–28.
  9. Linder SH 1997. The social and political (re)construction of risk. In: Flashpoints in Environmental Policymaking (Kamieniecki S, Gonzales GA, Vos RO, eds). Albany, NY:State University of New York Press, 63–82.
  10. Mileson B Faustman E Olin S Ryan PB Ferenc S Burke T 1999. A Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment. Washington, DC:ILSI Press.
  11. NRC (National Research Council) 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessments of Risk to Public Health, Commission on Life Sciences. Washington, DC:National Academy Press
  12. NRC (National Research Council) 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. Board on Agriculture and Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission of Life Sciences. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
  13. NRC (National Research Council) 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Commission on Life Sciences. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
  14. NRC (National Research Council) 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Committee on Risk Characterization, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.
  15. Sexton K Marcus AA Easter WK Burhardt TD eds. 1999. Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments, Businesses, and Communities. Washington, DC:Island Press,
  16. Wargo J 1998. Our Children’s Toxic Legacy: How Science and Law Fail to Protect Us from Pesticides. New Haven, CT:Yale University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Callahan, M. A., & Sexton, K.
Affiliations
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • The University of Texas System (US)
Corresponding author
Callahan, Michael A.
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2007-01-24
Volume
115
Issue
5
Pages
799-806
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W2087105515
Cited by
149
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 14
FWCI
7.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Yale University
  • Office of Research and Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Social Impact Assessments
Keywords
cumulative risk assessment, multiple environmental stressors, combined exposure, risk characterization, exposure pathways, risk assessment guidelines, human health risk
MeSH terms
Environmental Exposure, Environmental Pollutants, United States, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Guidelines as Topic, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review