Tobacco Documents Online

F,.¢onomic Impact In his state of the unioni address, President Bill Clinton encouragedl us to focus our attention, on the economy because "more thani anything else, our taskk tonight as Americans is to, make our economy thrive again." He exhorted us not'~ to just'~ "consume the bounty of today, but to invest for a much greater one tomorrow."' And,, he especially stressed the role that businesses would' have in our economic revival. The President's call was welcomed by many business leaders who are eagerly, awaiting economic revival. However, many businesses are unable to actively participate in this econornic resurgence due to the costs of running a business today, especially in terms of'remaining competitive and complying withh government regulations: For example, government regulations force businesses to spendl more on compliance than oni investment, and job creation. A substantial portion of these regulations are environmental regulations imposed not only on businesses, but on local governments andl on you by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But who really pays for these EPA regulations? You do. The costs of complying with federally mandated regulations are passed on to you, the cons mer and taxpayer, in the form of higher prices andl taxes, And, according to a July 6„ 1992, Forbes article entitled "You Can't Get, There From Here," it is estimated' that overall each American -- child, adult and senior citizen alike -- ends! . up paying some $450~ morein, higher taxesandi prices because of EPA regulations. That is $1,8001 a year more for a family of four. Furthermore, we are now spending over $f 15 billion a year to clean up the environment„ which will probably increase to more than $170 billion by the year 2000. Couldn't we findi something, better to do with all that money? No one disputes the need for the regulation of substances proven to be hazardous to the environment and our health. However, when the EPA imposes regulatiions based on inconclusive scientific studies and when politics and political correctness drive: science instead of science driving policy, thee economic costs far exceed: the health benefits, that might be attained. The case of Alar, a chemical growth regulator used on! apples, demonstrates the economic fallbut that, can, occur when politics and faulty science drive policy. Media attention and preliminary studies brought the issue of Alar to the forefront of public attention in 11989. It soon, became politically correct to oppose the use of Alar on apples. The EPA bowed~ to! public opinion and using only its preliminary reports which showed that Alar was a carcinogen, banned Alar. However, the EPA's finall rcports disproved its preliminary ones. Even though Alar was proven to be non-carcinogenic, it was too late. T'he damage had already been done. Apple growers lost $250 tnil116on,, and apple processors lost $125 million. Many smaller growers declared

_2_ bankruptcy. And, the U.S'. Agriculture Department had to purchase some $115 million worth of leftover, unwanted, apples. Can we afford~ the economiicc consequences of regulations based on, inconclusive research and politically correct motiives7 Though we may not be ready for the economic consequences, once again the EPA seems ready to use questionable studies to impose regulations with high economic costs upon us. This time the issue is environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), an issue t'hat has gained media attention and is a target of the EPA, states and businesses across America. Recently, the EPA studied the effects of ETS and concluded that it poses a heal'thi risk to nom-smokers: However, of the 3!0 studies reviewed b the EPA, 24 showed~ no statistically significant correlation between ETS and cancer andd the remaining 6 showed a correlation too small for researchers to discount other factors that might cause cancer such as outdoor air pollution. Scientists: such as Dr. Gary Huber, a, special'ist' on respiratory diseases from the University of Texas Health Center„ dispute the EPA findings. He stated, "No matter how y,ou. adjust the data,, the risk relationship for ETS and~ lung cancer remains very, wweak." " This inconclusive evidence and the possibly costly regulation that could result from it suggest that a different approach to ETS and indoor air quality is necessary: What needs to be developed is a more comprehensive approach to the issue of indoor air qual'uty, one that is scientifically based~ and economically feasible. The government should hold off on costly regulations until a total approach to indoor air quality cani be developed by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA). Once these standards are set, individual businesses should be allowed to meet them in, ways that best suit, their particular situations. Studies show that allowing flexibility to improve general air quality in a variety of ways is far less costly, than having remote authorities impose uniform responses to particular pollutants. If such an approach is not taken,, we may have to live with more economic horror stories like that of Alar. Regulations based on faulty science and political motives will force businesses and' govemment to~ spend money on compliance that instead could be applied to creating jobs and reviving the. economy. And, those additional expenses will be passed'~ on to us in the fornni of higher prices and taxes. Is this what Ptesident Clinton was calling for when he asked us to sacrifice so that our economy could~ thrive: again?' Should we sacrifice our economic well-being and revival upon an altar, of faulty data, and unnecessary, politically motivated regulations?