Human exposure modelling for chemical risk assessment: a review of current approaches and research and policy implications

A wide variety of exposure models are currently employed for health risk assessments. Individual models have been developed to meet the chemical exposure assessment needs of Government, industry and academia. These existing exposure models can be broadly categorised according to the following types of exposure source: environmental, dietary, consumer product, occupational, and aggregate and cumulative. Aggregate exposure models consider multiple exposure pathways, while cumulative models consider multiple chemicals. In this paper each of these basic types of exposure model are briefly described, along with any inherent strengths or weaknesses, with the UK as a case study. Examples are given of specific exposure models that are currently used, or that have the potential for future use, and key differences in modelling approaches adopted are discussed. The use of exposure models is currently fragmentary in nature. Specific organisations with exposure assessment responsibilities tend to use a limited range of models. The modelling techniques adopted in current exposure models have evolved along distinct lines for the various types of source. In fact different organisations may be using different models for very similar exposure assessment situations. This lack of consistency between exposure modelling practices can make understanding the exposure assessment process more complex, can lead to inconsistency between organisations in how critical modelling issues are addressed (e.g. variability and uncertainty), and has the potential to communicate mixed messages to the general public. Further work should be conducted to integrate the various approaches and models, where possible and regulatory remits allow, to get a coherent and consistent exposure modelling process. We recommend the development of an overall framework for exposure and risk assessment with common approaches and methodology, a screening tool for exposure assessment, collection of better input data, probabilistic modelling, validation of model input and output and a closer working relationship between scientists and policy makers and staff from different Government departments. A much increased effort is required is required in the UK to address these issues. The result will be a more robust, transparent, valid and more comparable exposure and risk assessment process. (C) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Assessment of the impact of government animal welfare policy on farm animal welfare in the UK

The paper presents the method and findings of a Delphi expert survey to assess the impact of UK government farm animal welfare policy, form assurance schemes and major food retailer specifications on the welfare of animals on forms. Two case-study livestock production systems are considered, dairy and cage egg production. The method identifies how well the various standards perform in terms of their effects on a number of key farm animal welfare variables, and provides estimates of the impact of the three types of standard on the welfare of animals on forms, taking account of producer compliance. The study highlights that there remains considerable scope for government policy, together with form assurance schemes, to improve the welfare of form animals by introducing standards that address key factors affecting animal welfare and by increasing compliance of livestock producers. There is a need for more comprehensive, regular and random surveys of on-farm welfare to monitor compliance with welfare standards (legislation and welfare codes) and the welfare of farm animals over time, and a need to collect farm data on the costs of compliance with standards.

An assessment of the benefits and limitations of the shamba agroforestry system in Kenya and of management and policy requirements for its successful and sustainable reintroduction

The shamba system involves farmers tending tree saplings on state-owned forest land in return for being permitted to intercrop perennial food crops until canopy closure. At one time the system was used throughout all state-owned forest lands in Kenya, accounting for a large proportion of some 160,000 ha. The system should theoretically be mutually beneficial to both local people and the government. However the system has had a chequered past in Kenya due to widespread malpractice and associated environmental degradation. It was last banned in 2003 but in early 2008 field trials were initiated for its reintroduction. This study aimed to: assess the benefits and limitations of the shamba system in Kenya; assess the main influences on the extent to which the limitations and benefits are realised and; consider the management and policy requirements for the system's successful and sustainable operation. Information was obtained from 133 questionnaires using mainly open ended questions and six participatory workshops carried out in forest-adjacent communities on the western slopes of Mount Kenya in Nyeri district. In addition interviews were conducted with key informants from communities and organisations. There was strong desire amongst local people for the system's reintroduction given that it had provided significant food, income and employment. Local perceptions of the failings of the system included firstly mismanagement by government or forest authorities and secondly abuse of the system by shamba farmers and outsiders. Improvements local people considered necessary for the shamba system to work included more accountability and transparency in administration and better rules with respect to plot allocation and stewardship. Ninety-seven percent of respondents said they would like to be more involved in management of the forest and 80% that they were willing to pay for the use of a plot. The study concludes that the structural framework laid down by the 2005 Forests Act, which includes provision for the reimplementation of the shamba system under the new plantation establishment and livelihood improvement scheme (PELIS) [It should be noted that whilst the shamba system was re-branded in 2008 under the acronym PELIS, for the sake of simplicity the authors continue to refer to the 'shamba system' and 'shamba farmers' throughout this paper.], is weakened because insufficient power is likely to be devolved to local people, casting them merely as 'forest users' and the shamba system as a 'forest user right'. In so doing the system's potential to both facilitate and embody the participation of local people in forest management is limited and the long-term sustainability of the new system is questionable. Suggested instruments to address this include some degree of sharing of profits from forest timber, performance related guarantees for farmers to gain a new plot and use of joint committees consisting of local people and the forest authorities for long term management of forests.