Low‐dose linearity: The rule or the exception?

Abstract In 1976, Crump, Hoel, Langley, and Peto described how almost any dose‐response relationship for carcinogens becomes linear at low doses when background cancers are taken into account. This has been used, by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA, as partial justification for a regulatory posture that assumes low‐dose linearity, as is illustrated by a discussion of regulation of benzene as a carcinogen. The argument depends critically on the assumption that the pollutant and the background proceed by the same biological mechanism. In this paper we show that the same argument applies to noncancer end points also. We discuss the application to a number of situations: reduction in lung function and consequent increase in death rate due to (particulate) air pollution; reduction in IQ and hence (in extreme cases) mental deficiency due to radiation in utero; reduction of sperm count and hence increase in male infertility due to DBCP exposure. We conclude that, although the biological basis for the health effect response is different, in each case low‐dose linearity might arise from the same mathematical effect discussed by Crump et al. (1976). We then examine other situations and toxic end points where low‐dose linearity might apply by the same argument. We urge that biologists and chemists should concentrate efforts on comparing the biological and pharmacokinetic processes that apply to the pollutant and the background. Finally, we discuss some public policy implications of the possibility that low dose linearity may be the rule rather than the exception for environmental exposures.