Tobacco Documents Online

' SUMMARY: SAFi=GUARDING THE FUTURE The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's scientific policies and procedures were severely criticized in a report that was aired before a recent congressional hearing. The report, titled " f r' F r: r i 1 i n r i 1 D i i n " was commissioned by EPA Administrator William K. Reilly and compiled by an independent advisory committee charged with examining the quality and application of science at EPA. In essence, the advisory.committee determined that the EPA lacks a strong scientific base - both in the quality of its scientists and its research. At the same time, however, the report said the agency fails to solicit high-quality scientific research outside the EPA. These agency flaws are problematic in the decision making process. According to the EPA's own guidelines, the agency is supposed to use the best up-to-date, objective scientific and technical information available for assessing risk and making policy decisions. Historically, this has not been the case, the committee report said. "However, EPA has not always ensured that contrasting, reputable scientific views are well-explored and well-documented from the beginning to the end of the regulatory process..."

"EPA science is perceived by many people...to be adjusted to fit policy. Such "adjustments" could be made consciously or unconsciously by the scientist or the decisionmaker." Furthermore, the committee reported that "the interpretation and use of science is uneven and haphazard across programs and issues at EPA...Scientistgi at ail levels throughout EPA believe that the Agency does not use their science effectivslv.° These findings should come as little surprise to the 2,400 former residents of Times Beach, Mo., who were evacuated from their homes upon the EPA's decision regarding the carcinogenic effects of dioxin. Ten years later, the science on dioxin is being reexamined by the EPA. Apparently, dioxin is not the potent carcinogen it was once believed to be. The committee findings also should come as little surprise to members of the apple industry, who lost millions of dollars as a result of ill-founded claims that Alar treated apples posed a significant cancer risk to children. Later--too late for those who lost their jobs--scientific opinion again shifted to refute those claims. How many more examples are there? How many other environmental exposures have been evaluated and are now being regulated based on political ideology or on scientific data that might have been of substandard quality, subjected to substandard peer review?

w In its first 20 years as an agency, the EPA has issued 9,000 regulations - 450 per year or 37.5 per month. That's 1.72 new regulations every working day for 20 years at a cost of more than $100 billion per year. How many of these were based on sound and objective science?