Tobacco Documents Online

A L E X I S NEWS RELEASE Contact: Cesar V. Conda August 11, 1994 (703) 351-4969 NEW STUDY FINDS INADEQUATE SCIENCE IN EPA'S RISK ASSESSMENTS I N S T 1 T U T 1 O N Washington, D.C: Today, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution released a research report which found that the science behind the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) risk assessments In four current environmental policy questions is inadequate. "Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination" critiques the science and economics that form the basis of the EPA's risk assessments and cost-benefit tests for environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous waste clean-up under the Superfund law. "America is now spending close to $150 billion annually to comply with environmental regulation. We need to make sure that this money is being spent to reduce the real risks - - not exaggerated risks," said Cesar V. Conda, executive director of the Institution. 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 environment in these four cases was based on faulty scientific analysis and selective use of data. Further, in the instances where the EPA did conduct a cost-benefit analysis, the purported Nbenefits" were greatly overstated. The report found the following: o Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS): The EPA's finding that second-hand smoke is linked to lung cancer is based on a lower threshold of risk assessment than that normally applied by the agency for other substances and activities. In short, the EPA study relied on methodologies different from those which have been historically used in such analyses. In fact, the overwhelming majority of studies conducted on ETS and lung cancer have found no statistically significant Indications of carcinogenicity. o Radon: On the basis of the credible research to date, at extremely high exposure levels, it appears that radon can significantly increase the risk of lung cancer. Yet, like so many other potentially harmful substances, at the lower levels of exposure which are commonly encountered, researchers have a hard time finding any evidence of harm. The EPA carefully and consistently selects data that supports its a priori assumption: that any amount of radon can cause cancer. (more) ~:R

-2- o Pesticides and Agric,ultural Chemicals: In 1989, the EPA had examined the agricultural chemical known s Alar and determined that scientific evidence with regard to potential cancer risks was In onciusive, at best. But in response to public fears generated by slanted presentations pr vided by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the EPA banned Alar. The costs of t is event were enormous (total losses were estimated at $140 million), the benefits too sr~all to measure, if they existed at all. The EPA's public pronouncements on pestici es should inform the public that naturally-occurring and synthetic pesticides can be uall carcinogenic. Further, the alleged cancer risk from residual pesticides must be eighed against the well-documented anti-cancer benefits from consuming fruits and vegetables. o Superfund: The Superfund hazardous clean-up law exemplifies all that is wrong with American environmenta~ policy: an expensive assault on minor risks resulting In an enormous waste of scarce 4sources. Only by assuming that extremely unlikely - and sometimes physically impos i ible - events will occur in the future is EPA able to create the impression of risk where no actual harm will occur. For example, EPA consistently assumes that future site u~es will include children, who will live there for 70 years, ingesting slightly less than ~ teaspoon of local dirt every day, and relying exclusively on contaminated groundwater for bathing and drinking. Indeed, at least half of the $14 billion the nation has spent on Sup rfund cleanups was used to comply with similar "dirt-eating" rules. "Overall, this report highligh- s the need to upgrade the science used by the EPA in making risk assessments of potentia~l environmental problems," said Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental ciences at the University of Virginia and the head of the academic review board. In t is regard, Sen. J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA) and Rep. John L. Mica (R-FL) have sponsored~ legislation that would require EPA to conduct scientifically- vigorous risk/cost-benefit ar~alysis for all new environmental regulations. "The general public must be educated to he fact that they face a multitude of risks in their everyday lives - driving a car, riding bike, or poor diets - many of which far exceed the probable health risks posed by substa ces and activities that the EPA wants to regulate and restrict," added Singer. ### The Alexis de Tocqueviile In titution is a non-profit, non-partisan education and research organization dedicated to th promotion of capitalism and democracy, both in the United States and throughout the w rld. For further information on the Institution or to request a copy of "Science, Economi , and Environmental Policy: A Critical Examination," please contact Cesar V. Conda or achel Applegate at (703) 351-4969 or write to: The Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, 2000 15th Street North, S. 501, Arlington, Va. 22201.