Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

More documents

Recommendations

Info

SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P.122 Bromfield, KB*; Rowe, AJ; Atapattu, AA; Environmental Protection Authority; kate.bromfield@epa.govt.nz A New Endophyte Risk Assessment Model Fungal endophytes are microorganisms that occur naturally within plant tissues, and do not usually cause any disease symptoms. They are an important component of the plant microbiome, and affect the plant’s growth and its response to pathogens, herbivores, and varied environmental conditions through the production of secondary metabolites (alkaloids). Recent advances in plant biotechnology mean the plant traits conferred by these endophytes in association with their natural host plant can be transferred into new plant species, in much the same way that traits are manipulated in genetically modified organisms. For example, some grass endophytes are being artificially inoculated into cereal crops to confer insect pest and drought resistance. However, some of the alkaloids produced by these endophytes are known to cause illness in grazing livestock, so there is a need to assess the risks of these changes to the chemical profile of the plants receiving these endophytes. We present a model for assessing the risks associated with the manipulation of endophytes across plant groups. We have tested this model using two case studies, presented here, and we are looking to expand its application further. The questions that drive this risk assessment model will inform any plant biosecurity risk assessment, including the assessment of plants with genetically modified traits. This model is the first of its kind and provides regulators with a simple yet effective approach to risk analysis, while ensuring consistency among decision makers. W4-C.1 Brookes, VJ*; Hernández-Jover, M; Cowled, B; Holyoake, PK; Ward, MP; 1,5 Univ. of Sydney, NSW, Australia. 2 Charles Sturt Univ., Australia. 3 AusVet Animal Health Services, Australia. 4 Dept of Environment and Primary Industries Victoria, Bendigo, Australia.; viki.brookes@bigpond.com From exotic to endemic : A stakeholder-driven framework examining disease prioritisation and the biosecurity continuum. Following the equine influenza incursion into Australia in 2007, an independent review of Australia’s quarantine and biosecurity arrangements was undertaken (Beale et al., 2008). The report highlighted that zero biosecurity risk is not possible or desirable, pointing out both the benefits and risks of the globalisation of trade and travel. In order to manage biosecurity risks, recommendations were made to shift biosecurity policy emphasis from border biosecurity reducing the risk of entry of pests and diseases, to also include post-border measures to minimise the risk of their establishment and spread. It was recommended that this biosecurity continuum should be a shared responsibility between the general community, businesses, and government, and that it should also be science-based and therefore rigorous. Establishing science-based policy that accounts for more than the economic impacts of a disease incursion is difficult – cultural and social impacts are largely intangible and therefore any measurements tend to be arbitrary and are difficult to reproduce. Public opinion is recognised as a driver of policy, but scientists can’t quantify it and use terms like “outrage factors” and “fear of the unknown” to try and explain it. A stakeholder-directed framework was developed to prioritise and examine the biosecurity continuum of exotic diseases. The framework is presented in the context of exotic disease risks to the domestic pig industry in Australia, and incorporates decision analysis, risk analysis and spatial disease modelling. We demonstrate how stakeholder opinion can be captured quantitatively, and therefore reproducibly, to identify and examine the risks of high priority diseases. The framework ultimately aims to identify appropriate surveillance and mitigation strategies according to the level concern of the industry, rather than only considering direct economic costs of disease incursions. Beale, R.et al., 2008. One Biosecurity: A Working Partnership. P.19 Brown, LPM*; Lynch, MK; Post, ES; Belova, A; Abt Associates, Inc. ; lauren_brown@abtassoc.com Determining a concentration-response relationship suitable for estimating adult benefits of reduced lead exposure Lead is a highly toxic pollutant that can damage neurological, cardiovascular, and other major organ systems. The neurological effects are particularly pronounced in children. However, the recent literature has found that a wide spectrum of adverse health outcomes can occur in people of all ages. In addition, a threshold below which exposure to lead causes no adverse health effects has not been identified. This suggests that further declines in lead exposure below today’s levels could still yield important benefits. A well-established quantitative risk assessment-based approach to evaluating the benefits of reductions in lead releases for adults does not exist. We will present our efforts to create a rigorous approach to value adult health benefits for endpoints such as cardiovascular mortality. We reviewed recently published government reports and the primary literature. We then assessed the weight-of-evidence for associations between lead exposure and cardiovascular, renal, reproductive, immune, neurologic and cancer endpoints for the purposes of benefits estimation. We closely evaluated the literature and will propose a concentration-response function relating blood lead levels to adverse effects, particularly cardiovascular mortality, in adults. This function could potentially be used to support the benefits analysis of future regulations intended to result in a decrease in lead exposure for adults. P.3 Burger, J*; Gochfeld, M; Powers, CW; Kosson, D; Clarke, J; Brown, K; Rutgers University, Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, Vanderbilt University; burger@dls.rutgers.edu Mercury at Oak Ridge: Outcomes from Risk Evaluations can Differ Depending upon Objectives and Methodologies Risk evaluations play an important role in environmental management, remediation, and restoration. Yet when different agencies and groups evaluate risk, the objectives and methods may differ, leading to different conclusions, which can confuse managers, policy-makers, and the public. In this paper we examine two evaluations of the potential risk from mercury contamination deriving from the Y-12 facility at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Reservation (Tennessee, USA). The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) examined the past and present risks from mercury to humans, using data provided in government reports and publications. The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP) used a risk-informed prioritization model it developed for managers to evaluate different remediation projects. The CRESP prioritization model considered both human and ecological receptors, as well as future potential risks. Risk was an important component of both evaluations, and both evaluations found that there was a completed pathway of mercury from the source on the Oak Ridge Reservation to offsite human receptors, although the evaluations differed in their final conclusions. In both cases, the pathway to off-site human exposure was through fish consumption. The two evaluations are compared with respect to purpose, specific goals, target audience, receptors, assumptions, time frames, evaluation criteria, and conclusions. When these aspects are considered, the risk evaluations are congruent, although the risk communication messages differ. We conclude that there are many different possible risk evaluations, and the aforementioned variables must be carefully considered when making management decisions, determining remediation goals, and communicating with regulators, managers, public policy makers, and the public. December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W2-B.4 Burns, CJ*; Wright, JM; Pierson, J; The Dow Chemical Company; cjburns@dow.com Panel discussion on the integration of workshop recommendations to move risk assessment forward Open any introductory to epidemiology textbook and there will be at least one chapter devoted to comparing and contrasting study designs. Investigators must tailor their research to the expected disease prevalence, availability of exposure data, population demographics, and ethical demands of the study subjects. Further, these considerations must be made in the very real context of time, cost and expertise required to complete the study. Integrating epidemiological results into risk assessment applications is often hampered by incomplete or unavailable data or other study limitations. Additional challenges that must be overcome may include problems related to time, cost and available expertise and reliance on traditional approaches. Further, few epidemiological studies are initiated with risk assessment needs in mind; thus more cross-discipline interactions may facilitate providing relevant data and analyses that can be more readily evaluated and applied. Several approaches to characterize and reduce uncertainty, improve exposure assessment, and promote advanced epidemiological methods were recommended by the 36 participants of the ILSI HESI workshop. If broadly implemented, the evaluation of causality based on epidemiological data might be improved and with it, its use in public health decision making. This panel discussion will focus on how to implement these workshop recommendations and break down barriers to their integration into everyday epidemiological evaluation and risk assessment applications. M4-H.2 Burns, WJ*; Slovic, P; Sellnow, T; Rosoff, H; John, R; Decision Research (AUTHORS 1 AND 2) UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY (AUTHORS 3) (AUTHORS 4 and 5); william_burns@sbcglobal.net Public response to the terrorist attacks on Boston On April 15 terrorists set off two bombs at the Boston Marathon killing 3 people and seriously injuring many others. Within days one terrorist was dead and the other apprehended. A nationwide online survey was conducted on April 16 to determine how the public was responding to this attack. A follow up survey was done with the same panel of respondents on April 30. Respondents were asked about their confidence in DHS to thwart and respond to terrorism, perceptions of terrorism risk, emotional reaction to the attack (e.g. anger, fear, sadness), their willingness to attend public events and the kind of information they sought in the first 24 hours after the attack. This analysis is currently ongoing and the results will be reported during the presentation. These findings inform risk management policy, particularly involving communication with the public during a crisis. W2-B.3 Burstyn, I; Drexel University; igor.Burstyn@drexel.edu On the future of epidemiologic methods in context of risk assessment Incorporation of epidemiologic evidence into human health risk assessment, specifically for a weight of evidence evaluation, is an important part of understanding and characterizing risks from environmental exposures. A thorough synthesis of relevant research, including epidemiology, provides a reasonable approach to setting acceptable levels of human exposure to environmental chemicals. Epidemiologic approaches for causal inference that include computational, frequentist and Bayesian statistical techniques can be applied to weight of evidence evaluations and risk characterization. While there is strong theoretical support for the utility of these approaches, their translation into epidemiologic practice and adoption to the needs of human health risk assessment is lagging. The focus of the epidemiologic methods breakout group of HESI workshop was to address methodologic enhancements and the application of these techniques to regulatory scientific evaluations. The group considered methods that are sometimes, but not frequently, used in epidemiologic studies to increase validity and more accurately portray uncertainties in results. As these results are key inputs for regulatory risk assessments, it is important to apply methodologies that appropriately represent validity and precision. Each of these broad approaches acts to improve the validity and better characterize the overall uncertainty for a single study’s findings and extends to improved characterization of epidemiologic results in weight of evidence assessments. The workshop participants expressed optimism that a widespread application of more appropriate methods of causal analysis and modeling can bring both increased application of epidemiologic results to risk assessments, and increased confidence among the stakeholders that policies based on this improved process would improve the effectiveness of interventions. The presentation will highlight the group’s recommendations and practical discussion points. M4-B.4 Butterworth, T; George Mason University; butterworthy@gmail.com BPA by the numbers: How the media framed risk The controversy over the safety of the chemical bisphenol a (BPA) has been driven by extensive media coverage, with hundreds of stories over the past six years. This presentation will look at how that coverage framed the purported risk - and how it consistently avoided the key data, quantitative and contextual, that explained that risk. December 8-11, 2013 - Baltimore, MD
Page 1 and 2: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 3 and 4: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 5 and 6: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 7 and 8: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M
Page 17: SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 69 and 70:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts P
Page 71 and 72:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts T
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts M
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
SRA 2013 Annual Meeting Abstracts W
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
show all

Abstracts (PDF file, 1.8MB) - Society for Risk Analysis

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?