Integrated risk information system
human health assessment program
The Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is an environmental assessment program operated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The IRIS program focuses on risk assessment, not risk management (those decision processes involving analysis of regulatory, legal, social and economic considerations related to the risks being studied).
History
In the 1980s, the IRIS program established a database of human health assessments about the impacts of chemicals in the environment. EPA created the database to provide a consistent approach to risk assessment practices across the various environmental laws that the Agency implemented and enforced.
The program was created by the EPA in 1985. Initially, the program aimed to foster consistency in the agency's chemical toxicity evaluation. The IRIS database was first made publicly available in 1987. In 1996, the EPA implemented a new process for building intra-agency consensus and improving efficiency within the IRIS database. The same year, the EPA introduced the IRIS Toxicological Review, which presented the first agency-wide health assessment document. In March 1997, the IRIS database was uploaded to the internet.
“Integrated risk information system” enters the record as human health assessment program. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Integrated, risk and information can confirm, complicate or overturn.
Why this record matters
“Integrated risk information system” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Integrated, risk and information provides the most credible route into that argument.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Nov 15, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q85769574. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1985, 1987, 1996 and 1997.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Integrated risk information system”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Integrated risk information system primary sources, Integrated risk information system archive and Integrated research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Integrated risk information system”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Integrated risk information system” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.