estimate could be used to support an imperative to protect public health. Alternatively, if the goal is to compare that risk with other risk management priorities, countervailing risks, or the economic costs of risk mitigation, a central or arithmetic mean value could be used. Finally, to address uncertainty associated with specification of the dose-response relationship functional form below the POD (that is, linear vs. nonlinear), EPA could choose to use a margin of exposure approach in place of estimating population risk. These options are the purview of risk management rather than risk assessment.
On the whole, it was the committee’s impression that EPA’s narrative in discussing epidemiological studies in Part III of the Reassessment tended to focus on positive findings without fully considering the strengths and limitations of both positive and negative findings. Part III of the Reassessment would be strengthened if EPA clearly identified specific inclusion criteria for those studies for which quantitative risk estimates were determined.