Tobacco Documents Online

Restore Scientific Focus to EPA Policy I By Elizabeth Whelan ~ In one of her fust official acts as the new administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Agency, Carol Browner acted decisively to bring our antiquated food safetylaws up to speed with 1993 science. Specifically, she told the press in February that trace levels of pesticide residues in food pose no health hazard; that the Delaney Clause, which ab- solutely prohibits in the food supply the presence of any dose of synthetic chemicals that cause cancer in labo- ratory rodents, is a scientific anachro- nism; and that if we continue to ban pesticides under the 1958 science of • the Delaney Clause, the current abun- dance of our food supply will be in jeopardy. While scientists cheered this re- freshing; common-sense approach, en- vironmentalists fumed. "Say it ain'tso" cried Albert H. Meyerhoff, a seniorat- torney at the Natural Resources De- fense Council (the.group that brought us the now-debunked Alar apple scare of 1989), suggesting that Browner's move was somehow inconsistent with the Clinton-Gore admimiruation s com- mitment to enhanced protection of the environment and public health. Within hours of her announcement, Browner may have flinched from the pellets of wrath fired at her by the vocal environmental groups. Her office sent out a faxed press statement that ap- pears to back away from her coura- geous stand: "Contrary to the impres- sion left by published reports, . Administrator Browner has at no time said she wants to relax the Delaney Clause" But indeed that was the pre- cise thrust of what she originally had , said - and what she still should work actively to accomplish. In mindlessly defending the scien- tifically tifically obsolete Delaney Clause, self- appointed protectors of the envi- ronment base their concept of "dan- gerous" on the premises that (a) ex- posure to trace levels of chemicals play a role in causing human cancer; (b) a mouse is a little man; (c) if a huge amount of something causes cancer in a rodent then we must assume that mi- nuscule levels (which we could not even detect with the technology of five years ago) must pose a cancer hazard to humans; and (d) these "carcino- gens;' defined as chemicals that cause cancer, occurexclusively in man-made products. These premises may have squared with the science of 1958, when Con- gress wrote the Delaney Clause - but all of them are obsolete today. The Na- tional Cancer Institute confirms that pesticide residues play no known role in causing human cancer. The scien- tific community agrees that animal ex- periments, while useful in research, do not automatically predict cancer risk in humans; that risk is related to dose - only the dose makes the poison - and thus huge, almost-lethal doses of chemicals in animals have no rele- vance to human risk; and that chemi- cals which cause cancer in animals abound in nature. If we were to apply the Delaney Clause to nature, we would have to ban (INK 4 1,133 March 8, 1993 Insight coffee, table pepper, peanut butter, I mushrooms and more. , The question of the fate of the De- ; laney Clause has reached a crisis level ' because environmental groups last year sued to make the EPA follow the letter of the law - no trace levels, no ! further discussion - instead of ac- cepting what scientists call the concept of "negligible risk." A federal court in San Francisco this past spring sided with the envi- ronmentalists - not because it was agreeing that trace-level chemicals cause a health hazard but because it was interpreting the intent of Congress in passingthe Delaney Clause.It is now on to the Supreme Court - a decision is expected this spring - and again, because the court will be looking at congressional intent, not scientific merit, the nation's highest court may well uphold the Delaney principle. If this happens, the EPA could have to ban a full spectrum of agricultural chemicals - and that will translate to substantially fewer vegetables and fruits available for consumption in the United States. It is that food crisis that Browner was attempting to avert by setting the stage for new congressional action to repealthe Delaney Clause if indeed the Supreme Court throws the ball back to Congress. . Browner and the EPA now need support and encouragement. It takes a strong determination and commit- ment to do what is scientifically cor- rect, not politically correct, and to stand up to the environmentalists who feel that in a Democratic administra- j tiontheyshould call the shots. The new I EPA chief has shown her potential for putting environmental policy back on scientific track, but it ain't over until the Delaney Clause is repealed or re- vised. As we watch the final face-off be- tween Browner, Congress and the en- vironmentalists, keep in mind that what is being decided is whether we will continue to have the safest, least expensive, most plentiful and enviable food supply in the world - or whether we will abandon the tools of modern agricultural technology and watch pro- duce prices soar and food availability and quality diminish. • Elizabeth Whelan is president oJ the American Council on Science and Nealth. COMP A951'