台灣如何因應當前迫切的健康風險管理與溝通的問題

How Taiwan Copes with the Currently Pressing Issues of Risk Management and Risk Communication

10.6499/JSGR.2017.0401.001

江舟峰(Chow-Feng Chiang)

風險評估 ； 風險管理 ； 風險感知 ； 風險溝通 ； 通用風險管理架構 ； risk assessment ； risk management ； risk perception ； risk communication ； general risk management framework

土壤及地下水污染整治

4卷1期（2017 / 01 / 01）

1 - 15

繁體中文

近年來台灣環境保護與及食安事件頻傳，三大民生母法—環境、食品、職安法，相繼回應民眾的要求，納入健康風險管理的思維。當前的諸多挑戰：環境影響評估之健康風險評估、細微粒與危害空氣污物管理、大型工業基地風險管理、土壤地下水污染場址褐地開發、食品國際貿易、膳食風險評估、食品溯源風險控管、食品危害物及添加物管制標準訂定、食品製造與加工風險管理等，如何平衡風險與利益，兼顧公共衛生與永經濟發展，攸關國家整體發展甚巨。本文以文獻回顧法，針對風險管理與風險溝通，彙整國內外重要規範與案例，剖析台灣當前重要問題，釐清窒礙之處，建議可行方案。九項建議如下：（1）政策之訂定須兼顧專家與民眾觀點、（2）探討本土族群風險感知因子、（3）建立本土毒理參數訂定機制、（4）善用生物有效性學理避免過度保守之風險推估、（5）借鏡美國United State National Research Council風險管理之最新建議、（6）區隔風險評估與風險管理工作、（7）建構風險管理決策支援系統、（8）建立事件導向之風險管理制度、（9）培育風險溝通的實務人才。

1. Background In recent years, many risk events related to environmental protection and food safety have taken place in Taiwan. Accordingly, the concept of risk management has been incorporated in three government bills on environmental protection, food safety, and occupational safety. The focal issues and challenges in this context are: health risk assessment (HRA) within the framework of environmental risk assessment (EIA), the air quality management of fine particles and hazardous pollutants, the risk management of large industrial complex sites, brownfield development of soil and groundwater contaminated sites, international food trading, population-based dietary risk assessment, premarket food risk surveillance and control, regulatory standards of food hazards and additives, risk control of food manufacturing and processing. A key issue in these national risk agenda is thus balancing risks and benefits while also considering sustainability and development. This study aims to clarify the pressing issues in this context and propose feasible risk management and communication resolutions to them. 2. Methods The method of literature review was used in this study to analyze the pressing issues of risk management and risk communication in Taiwan. The important Taiwanese and international guidelines and case studies used in this work were published by: the United State National Research Council (NRC), Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC), Taiwan Environmental Protection (TEPA), Taiwan Food and Drug Administration (TFDA), and key international peer-reviewed research journals. 3. Results Nine suggestions are proposed: (1) Public policy is better made by considering both expert opinions and public perception; (2) the risk perception of the Taiwanese public should be studied more extensively; (3) a mechanism for establishing toxicological references suitable for Taiwan should be set-up; (4) the bioavailability of encapsulated soil should be applied to reduce the conservativeness of current risk estimates; (5) we should examine the suggestions of the latest National Research Council risk management guidelines; (6) the work of risk assessment must be functionally separated from that of risk management; (7) a site-specific decision support system (DSS) is beneficial for better risk communication and decisionmaking; (8) the event-specific model of risk management should be established; and (9) practical professionals capable of risk communication should be fostered for regular needs. 4. Conclusions This study analyzed several pressing issues regarding risk management and communication in Taiwan. These issues involved the multi-disciplines of toxicological science, science and technology management, economic development, and social science. It is hoped that this study will promote better risk management and communication with a more appropriate balance of risk and benefit in the process of policy making in Taiwan.

1. 江舟峰,張芳華,許惠悰(2006)。生物有效性體外試驗應用於健康風險評估之問題與展望。台灣公共衛生雜誌，25(1)，1-10。
   連結：
2. Benford, D.,de Boer, J. G.,Carere, A.,di Domenico, A.,Johansson, N.,Schrenk, D.,Dellatte, E.(2008).Opinion of the scientific panel on contaminants in the food chain on PFOS, PFOA and their salts.The EFSA Journal,653,1-131.
3. Codex Alimentarius Commission=CAC(2015).Procedure Manual.Rome, Italy:Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
4. Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air Pollutants, National Research Council,Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Study(2009).Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment.Washington, DC.:The National Academies Press.
5. Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, National Research Council(1994).Science and judgement in risk assessment.Washington, DC.:The National Academies Press.
6. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2007) Guidance for evaluating the oral bioavailability of metals for Use in human health risk assessment. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. https://semspub.epa.gov/work/HQ/175333.pdf
7. Environmental Protection Agency=EPA(1990).General quantitative risk assessment guidelines for non-cancer health effect.Washington, DC.:Environmental Protection Agency.
8. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (1989) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (GAGS), Volume I: Human Health Evaluation (Part A). https://www.epa.gov/risk/riskassessment-guidance-superfund-rags-part
9. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2005) Guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment, EPA/630/P-03/001F. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
10. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2016) IRIS Assessments: Browse assessment by organ/system. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/iris2/atoz.cfm
11. Environmental Protection Agency=EPA(2000).Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), (2000) Benchmark dose technical guidance document, EPA/630/R-00/001. Environment Protection Agency, Washington, DC..
12. Fischhoff, B.,Slovic, P.,Lichtenstein, S.,Read, S.,Combs, B.(1978).How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of altitudes towards technical risks and benefits.Policy Sciences,9(2),127-152.
13. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,World Health Organization(2006).Food safety risk analysis: A guide for national food safety authorities.Geneva, Switzerland:World Health Organization.
14. Hsieh, D.P.H.,Chiang, C.F.,Chiang, P.H.,Wen, C.P.(2009).Toxicological analysis points to a lower tolerable daily intake of melamine in food.Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,55(1),13-16.
15. Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (J IFSAN), (2016) Risk Com munication. Food Risk.org, operated by J IFSAN and CFSAN/USFDA. http://foodrisk.org/rc/
16. National Research Council=NRC(1983).Risk Assessment in the federal government: Managing the process.Washington, DC.:The National Academies Press.
17. Reilly, W.(1990).Counting on science at EPA.Science,249,616-618.
18. Slovic, P.(1987).Perception of risk.Science,236,280-285.
19. Society for Risk Analysis (SRA), (2015) SRA glossary. http://www.sra.org/sites/default/files/pdf/SRA-glossary-approved22june2015-x.pdf
20. U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), (2007) Interim melamine and analogues safety/risk assessment. https://www.fda.gov/food/foodborneillnesscontaminants/chemicalcontaminants/ucm164658.htm
21. Young, L.H.,Kuo, H.W.,Chiang, C.F.(2015).Environmental health risk perception of a nationwide sample of Taiwan college students majoring in engineering and health sciences.Human and Ecological Risk Assessment,21(2),307-326.
22. 江舟峰(2008)。江舟峰 (2008)，環境暴露評估，教育部環境風險通識教材，江舟峰編著。台中：中國醫藥大學風險分析中心。
23. 江舟峰 (2016a)，風險評估不是決策避風港。中時電子報，民意論壇，2016.06.06。http://www.chinatimes.com/newspapers/20160606000394-260109
24. 江舟峰 (2014)，強化食安潛勢分析預警。聯合報，A15版，民意論壇，2014 年 9 月 22 日。
25. 江舟峰（編）(2016).食品安全風險管理—基礎與應用.台中:中國醫藥大學風險分析中心.
26. 江舟峰,凌明沛,林家玉,蔡佩鈴(2008)。中部地區民眾淋浴健康風險評估與風險特性化研究。Mid-Taiwan Journal of Medicine，13(1)，27-34。
27. 江舟峰,楊禮豪,謝顯堂(2010)。大專生輕忽日常高暴露的健康風險。永續台灣論壇，3，1-2。
28. 江舟峰,蔡清讚(2013)。健康風險決策支援系統之建置與範例分析。中華民國環境工程學會第二十五屆環境資訊與規劃管理研討會
29. 江舟峰,蔡清讚,余雅芳,葉嘉宏,鄭榕真,蔡經綸(2014)。空污事件管理決策支援系統之建立與測試—以台灣台中工業區異味陳情為例。第四屆海峽兩岸環境保護會議─福州論壇
30. 行政院環保署 (2011)，「健康風險評估技術規範」。台北：行政院環保署。
31. 行政院環保署(2014)。行政院環保署 (2014a)，「土壤及地下水污染場址健康風險評估評析方法」。台北：行政院環保署。
32. 行政院環保署(2006)。行政院環保署 (2006)，「土壤及地下水污染場址健康風險評估評析方法及撰寫指引」。台北：行政院環保署。
33. 行政院環保署(2014)。行政院環保署 (2014b)，「因自然環境產生場址之環境影響與健康風險、技術及經濟效益評估方法及撰寫指引」。台北：行政院環保署。
34. 行政院環保署 (2016)，「土壤及地下水整治場址環境影響與健康風險評估辦法」。台北：行政院環保署。
35. 蔡清讚,江舟峰,余雅芳,葉嘉宏,鄭榕真,蔡經綸(2014)。區域性空氣品質管理決策支援系統之建立與測試─以台灣台中市粒狀污染物為例。第四屆海峽兩岸環境保護會議─福州論壇
36. 蔡清讚,陳冠伊,余雅芳,卓恆毅,江舟峰(2016)。多介質健康風險評估系統之開發與應用—以台灣某有機物料儲槽開發場址為例。第六屆海峽兩岸環境保護會議—泉州論壇

1. 鍾明光,盧道杰,蔡博文,婁安琪,徐健銘,周桂田(2020)。利用公眾參與地理資訊系統協助環境資源經理中的風險溝通：以宜蘭縣無尾港水鳥保護區之社區監測為例。地理學報，97，77-113。