Furthermore, the barriers created by these inconsistencies in terminology reduce the possibility for the sharing and use of assessments between countries. Inconsistencies in terminology used can be impediments to the harmonization of risk assessment approaches by hindering the mutual understanding of the different approaches currently in use. IPCS, through its various activities and in particular through its project on Harmonization of Approaches to the Assessment of Risk from Exposure to Chemicals, has also identified the development and consistent use of terminology as a priority area. During this project, in which data review reports on seven pesticides were compared, inconsistency in terminology was found in all test areas, but was particularly prevalent for certain aspects related to human health (e.g., reproductive and developmental toxicity, carcinogenicity). For example, inconsistencies were recognized in the OECD Pilot Project to Compare Pesticide Data Reviews. The main reasons for this problem were the interdisciplinary character of environmental health and the fact that each of the disciplines had developed, within its own framework, a specific “language culture.” Due to the lack of an internationally agreed upon glossary of environmental health terms, almost every single programme/project had developed, for practical reasons, its own “working terminology.” Although work has been done previously on the development of internationally agreed upon definitions for terms used in chemical hazard/risk assessment (e.g., by IPCS, OECD, and others), inconsistencies in the definitions and use of many of these terms still exist. Background: Over the past decades, the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as many other international organizations and programmes, have been faced with the problem of misunderstandings concerning terms used in the environmental health field.
0 kommentar(er)
