Tobacco Documents Online

AUG 10 '94 06~55PM FDTI I NEWS RELEASE Conthct: Cesar V. Conda August 11, 19" (703) 9111-4iisa NEW STUDY FINDS INADEQUATE SCIENCE IN EPA'E RISK ASSESEMCNTN P. 4 Washington, D.C.-Today, the Alexis de Tooquewllie inatibrtton riNased a research report which found that the science behind the EmrlronmeeKai Protection Agsr+oy's (EPA) risk arsessmenta In taur current environmental policy questions ts lnsdequate. '8oi.no., 19aonomios, and Lnvironmantal Policy: A Critical Examinafion' oritiques ths sCience and ec<ynomics that form the basis of the EPA's risk ass.esmerrts and oosl~-bsndit tests for environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pssdcides, and hazardous waste clean-up under the Superfund law. 'Am+irica Is now spending clase to $130 billion annually to compiy with environmental regulation. We need to make sur* that this money is being spent to raduoe ths real rlsks - - not soggeratsd risks; said Cssr V. Conda, exicutive director of the InsftHon. The report - conducted by the staff of the Institute and reviewed by an academic advisory board of 19 distinguished scientists and economists around the country - found that the EPA's assessment of potential risks to human health and the envira+ment In thsse four cases was based on faulty scientific analysis and selective use o# dat.. Further, In the tnstsnaos whsre the EPA did conduct a cost-benefit analysis, the purported'h.netits" werft greatly overstated. The report found the following: o Enrirvnmsntai Tobacco Smoke (ETS): The cPA's iinding that seaond•hand anok. is linked to lung cancer Is based on a io'w.r threshold of risk asssssm.nt thsn that normally applied by the agency for other substanc4s and activities. In short, the EPA study raiied an methodologies differen# from those which have bssn historically used In such analyses, In fact, tho overwhelming majority of studies conducted an ETS and lung cancer havd found no statisticatly significant indications of aarcinwqenicity. o Radon: On the basis of the credible rvsearch to dato, at gftongh high oxposure tewis, E appears that radon can significantly lnorsase the risk of iung cancer. Yet, ilko so many other poterrtiaily harmful substances, at the iower levels of exposure which are commonly enQounterod, r4aearchers have a hard tlme finding any evidence of harm. The EPA carafully and consistently sel.cts data that supports Its a oriori a Motion: that any . amount of radon can wuse cancer. (more)

P.5 i -2- o Pestldd.s and Agricultural Chemicals: In 198k, the EPA had examined the agrloulturtl chMniaaa known as Alar and determined that scientific mridenca with regard to potential cancer risks was Inconclusive, at bvst. But In response to public fsars generated by slant.d presentations provided by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA banned Al.r. The oosts of this event were enormous (total losses were estimated at $140 million), tho benefits too small to measure, If they existed at all. The EPA's public pronouna.msnts on p..tisidee should Inform the public that naturaiiy-ooourring and synthetic psstioid.s can be eguaft carcinogenic. Furth.r, tho alleged cancer risk from residual pesttcidss must be weighed against the well-doe:ument.d anti-sanoer benefits from cansuming fruits and vsystables. o Euperfand: The 9uperfund hazardous clean-up law exemplifies alE that Is wrong with American environmental policy: an expensive assault on minor risks resulting In an .normous waste of scaroe resources. Only by assuming that extremely unlikely - and som.tlmas physically Impossible - ewenb will occur in the future Is EPA able to cr.ate the Impression of risk where no actual harm will occur. For .xample, EPA vonslstsntiy assuunss that future site uses will includs ahildrsn, who will Ihn there for 70 y.dsrs, Ingesting slightly isaa thsn a tesspoon of local dirt every day, and relying exclusively on oonhminaterd groundwater for bathing and drinking. Indeed, at iest half of the $14 billion the nation has spent on sup.rfund cleanups was used to comply with similar 'dirt-.attng" rules. 'Ovirail, this report highlights the need to upyrad+s the science used by the EPA in making risk assrssments of potential environmental problems,' said Dar. S. Prsd Singsr, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at th. University of Virpinia and ths head of the aeademio retiisw board. In this regard, 3on. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and Rep. John L Nioa (R-!eL) havs sponsored legislation that would require EPA to conduct sciendAaally- vigorous risk/cost~beneflt analysis for all nsw environmental regulatio:u. "Tho general public mu.t be educated to the fact that they faos a multitude of risks In their everyday pv+os - driving #car, riding a blke, or poor dlets - many of which far exceed th. probable health risks posed by substances and sctivities that the EPA wants to regulate and restrict,' added Singer. ` #d` d` The Alexis de Tooqueviilf Institution Is a non-prafk, no»-partisan education and research orgaedzatlon dedicated to the promotion of capitalism and democracy, both In the United States and throughout the world. For further Information on the Institution or to request a copy of'$oienee, Economics, and Environmental Poltey: A Critical Examination,' please contact Cesar V. Conda or Rachel Applegate at (703) sS1-4ii09 or write to: The Alexis de Tocquwllls Institution, 2000 1 8th Street North, S. 501, Arlington, Va. 22201.