[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 145 (Friday, October 7, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: October 7, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       WHEN EPA EXAGGERATES RISKS

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I would like to bring the attention of 
my Senate colleagues to an op-ed written by Kent Jeffreys of the Alexis 
de Tocqueville Institution entitled, ``When EPA Exaggerates Risks.''
  We are now spending close to $150 billion annually in public and 
private resources to comply with environmental regulation. We need to 
make sure that this money is being spent to reduce real risks to human 
health and the environment, not exaggerated risks. Enhanced risk 
assessments would target scarce resources, thereby strengthening our 
environmental protection efforts.
  In this article, Mr. Jeffreys summarizes the finding of a major study 
he conducted for the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution entitled 
``Science, Economics, and Environmental Policy: A Critical 
Examination.'' This study critiqued the scientific methods that form 
the basis of the EPA's risk assessments and cost-benefit test for 
environmental tobacco smoke, radon, pesticides, and hazardous waste 
clean-up under the Superfund law. This report found that the EPA's 
assessment of potential risks in these four areas was based on faulty 
scientific analysis and selective use of date. Further, in the 
instances where the EPA did conduct a cost-benefit analysis, the 
purported benefits were greatly overstated.
  Mr. President, as this session of Congress draws to a close, there 
may be a last ditch effort to consider several pieces of environmental 
legislation, including the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. In 
my view, if these environmental bills are to pass the Congress, they 
should at the very least include sound risk and cost-benefit analysis 
provision. That only makes common sense. I ask unanimous consent that 
Mr. Jeffrey's article be printed in the Record immediately following my 
remarks.
  I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     [From the Journal of Commerce and Commercial, Sept. 15, 1994]

                       When EPA Exaggerates Risks

                           (By Kent Jeffreys)

       Opinion polls consistently show that Americans are cynical 
     toward government. Too often such cynicism is well-earned. 
     Yet, one policy area that might deserve even more cynicism is 
     environmental regulation. There is substantial evidence that 
     the American people are not getting accurate and complete 
     information from the government when it comes to 
     environmental risks. Remarkably, however, the government is 
     not ignoring large risks but greatly exaggerating tiny ones.
       With the Sept. 13 release of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency's new report on the health risks of exposure to 
     dioxin, the public debate over environmental risks is likely 
     to reach a fever pitch in the coming weeks. Yet, given EPA's 
     track record, this new risk assessment should be viewed with 
     a healthy dose of skepticism.
       At the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, we recently 
     completed a review of the EPA's risk assessments of four 
     specific environmental issues: ``environmental'' tobacco 
     smoke, indoor radon, pesticide residues on the food supply 
     and hazardous waste cleanup under the federal Superfund law. 
     In each case, the human health risks have been greatly 
     exaggerated and the resulting costs from regulations have 
     vastly exceeded the potential benefits.
       As a first example, consider pesticides. Under the so-
     called Delaney clause of the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics 
     Act, a zero tolerance is established for any chemical linked 
     to cancer in laboratory animals, regardless of the dose 
     actually tested in the experiment. Yet when the Delaney 
     clause was adopted as law, scientists could only detect 
     chemicals at fairly high levels. Thus, the regulation 
     provided the desired margin of safety with little impact on 
     food production and processing.
       Today, much smaller quantities are routinely analyzed, 
     often detecting a few molecules per quadrillion. In other 
     words, ``zero'' has gotten much smaller and therefore much 
     harder to achieve. Indeed, under the Delaney clause, many 
     useful agricultural chemicals must be banned lest they 
     somehow be detected in processed foods. No health 
     consequences can be shown for such small amounts; they can 
     only be assumed.
       Even when the potential health risk arises from nature 
     itself, the environmental bureaucracy consistently overstates 
     the risks. Radon, a naturally radioactive gas that is 
     constantly seeping out of most soil and rock formations, can 
     accumulate in the lower level of man-made structures. 
     Potentially a health risk can arise, since high doses of 
     radioactive gases in the air can increase the risk of 
     developing lung cancer.
       Yet the EPA and its environmental allies insist that a 
     single molecule of radon can cause lung cancer. In other 
     words, there is no ``safe'' exposure level. Although EPA 
     concedes the reality that no one could achieve radon-free 
     indoor air--after all; the outdoor air has measurable 
     quantities of radon--it still insists that all homes and 
     schools should be tested. Even if the tests show low to 
     moderate readings of radon, EPA ``recommends'' that expensive 
     remediation work be performed, especially if the home is to 
     be sold on the open market.
       This is unnecessary for several reasons. First, the EPA's 
     recommended action level was based on an assumption of 70 
     years of constant exposure. Few people are so homebound. Even 
     worse, the EPA's research data came from studies of 
     underground mining operations with extremely high exposure 
     levels. It should become apparent that the average home does 
     not closely resemble a mine shaft. The needless expenditures 
     by worried homeowners have run into the hundreds of millions, 
     even billions, of dollars.
       Perhaps no less more perfectly displays the problem of 
     exaggerating health risks than the fight over smoking in 
     public. The latest weapon in the war on tobacco seems to be 
     an unfortunate willingness to distort the truth.
       Almost everyone now admits that heavy smoking is 
     detrimental to the health of millions of Americans. Thus, the 
     facts about smoking should be sufficient to make the point: 
     If you smoke, you should probably stop. There is a widespread 
     effort under way, however, to prohibit smoking universally, 
     regardless of the willingness of the smoker to assume the 
     risks.
       The EPA and its partners in the anti-tobacco war have 
     seriously exaggerated what is known about secondhand smoke. 
     For example, standard procedures for estimating the 
     possibility of radon error were altered by the EPA so that it 
     could assert its findings on secondhand smoke were 
     ``statistically significant.'' Yet, even if one uncritically 
     accepts the EPA's conclusions, the resulting increase in risk 
     is about the same as the lifetime risk of being killed while 
     riding a bicycle.
       If the EPA were trying to prove that secondhand smoke can 
     be an annoyance to many people, then it would be on solid 
     ground. But the EPA is attempting to prove that serious 
     medical risks are created by even casual exposure to 
     secondhand smoke. In its effort to do so, the EPA has 
     manipulated selected portions of the existing literature 
     until it produced the desired result. Whatever the 
     motivations of the EPA officials in this matter, it is 
     unacceptable to distort the science for the sake of a policy 
     goal. The EPA's stance on secondhand smoke has an Alice in 
     Wonderland quality of ``sentence first--verdict afterwards.''
       Even among those of us who don't smoke, there is reason to 
     be concerned with the direction of the debate over tobacco. 
     This issue is much bigger than tobacco itself because if 
     science is distorted in an effort to ``do good,'' society 
     ultimately may be left much worse off. Skeptics should 
     consider that whenever a tobacco company makes a statement 
     about smoking and health, it is generally discounted because 
     of the `'special interest'' it holds in the issue. This is no 
     less applicable to the ``special interests'' of the EPA. The 
     bureaucrats are strongly interested in justifying their 
     budgets and generating favorable publicity. Yet that does not 
     excuse flagrant disregard for the scientific method.
       EPA officials have a duty to conduct the best science 
     possible and report the results fully and honestly. One would 
     hope they would avoid unnecessarily alarming the American 
     public over issues of health. That has not been the case with 
     most low-level environmental risks. Sadly, the EPA itself is 
     becoming a health risk by distracting Americans from the true 
     hazards.

                          ____________________