Political Economy Research Center

and

John C. Goodman

National Center for Policy Analysis

NCPA Policy Report #137

April, 1989

National Center for Policy Analysis 12655 North Central Expressway, Suite 720 Dallas, TX 75243 (972) 386-6272

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Because of fear and panic over the possibility that people are being exposed to cancer-causing chemicals, politicians at the state and federal level are enacting unwise laws and regulations. All too often, these laws eliminate a highly visible risk while at the same time increasing our exposure to less visible but more dangerous risks. As a result, legislation passed in the name of "safety" is making us less safe.

• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently closed 35 wells in California because the water contained trace elements of a carcinogenic chemical; yet California tap water (the most likely alternative to well water) is many times more carcinogenic than the water in the wells which were closed.

• The government has banned the use of EDB as a fumigant in agriculture because it was discovered to be a mild carcinogen in rodents; yet EDB was the safest known way of combating molds, which produce some of the most potent carcinogens found in all of nature.

• The government also has placed a total ban on the use of DDT; yet although DDT apparently is not harmful to humans, it has been replaced by pesticides that are very dangerous for farm workers.

California's Proposition 65, the most sweeping chemical regulatory law ever enacted by a state government, requires that anyone exposing others to carcinogenic substances post warnings. Yet this law could make Californians less safe, not more so. If the proponents of Proposition 65 get their way, California businesses will be posting warnings everywhere. But if every product carries a warning, warning labels will lose their impact and consumers will be unable to distinguish the few major risks from the trivial risks of everyday life.

As recent events have shown, the mere mention of the word "cancer" by public officials has the potential to create national panic and hysteria. That's unfortunate.

• Fully one-half of all natural and man-made chemicals that have ever been tested have been shown to cause cancer in rodents, if administered in very large amounts.

• This means that small (usually trivial) amounts of rodent carcinogens are present in almost everything we eat and in almost all the air we breath.

• On the bright side, the International Agency for Research on Cancer has identified only 26 chemicals that are carcinogens in humans, and it appears that our resistance to carcinogens to which we are routinely exposed is quite strong

What is missing in the formation of public policies is a sense of perspective.

• Although there is increasing public concern over cancer risk from pesticide residues in our food, the amount of carcinogenic pesticides consumed in a day is one-twentieth of the amount of natural carcinogens in one cup of coffee.

• Although there is increasing concern over cancer risk from polluted air, the amount of carcinogens in the browned and burned food we eat -- the carcinogens are produced by cooking -- is several hundred times greater than the amount of carcinogens inhaled by breathing severely polluted air.

INTRODUCTION1

In the United States, government is rapidly increasing its control over activities involving chemical risks. Superfund legislation at the federal level, and Proposition 65 in California, are highly visible examples. These laws have been spurred by public fear that chemicals and their by-products pose grave risks to the environment in general and to human beings in particular. As technology has increased our standard of living, it also has exposed us to many man-made chemicals, which have been labeled carcinogens. Yet cancer risks have not increased. We are living longer, and the risk of death from cancer is decreasing for the population as a whole.

Major reasons for our longer lives include greater affluence and the opportunities created by technological change. The new risks we accept usually replace even greater risks left behind. Automobile travel is dangerous, but mile for mile it is much safer than travel on horseback. People die each year in spectacular airplane crashes, but airplanes are far safer than automobiles. Only the earth's richer residents ride in automobiles, and only the very richest travel the safest way -- by air.

It should not be surprising to learn, then, that richer societies are safer than poorer ones. People in rich societies, whatever their income level, live longer, healthier lives than do those in societies with simpler lifestyles. The benefits of greater income and wealth, including safer travel and safer homes, far outweigh the risks of economic development and technological change.

"Risk" is often interpreted as bad -- a thing to be avoided. Yet all economic and technological progress requires that human beings take risks. It is precisely because our ancestors took risks that we enjoy healthier, longer lives than they did. As Aaron Wildavsky has so persuasively argued, "There can be no safety without risk.2

Immunization against childhood diseases is a good example. Each year about 3.5 million children receive vaccines against diphtheria, whooping cough, and tetanus. Of these children, 25,000 get high fevers, 9,000 collapse in some way, 50 are brain damaged, and as many as 20 die. About eight children get polio each year after receiving the polio vaccine. These risks, however, are far preferable to the much more frequent incidence of disease and death that would occur if the vaccines were not administered.3

The challenge, then, is to provide protection for the public against clear chemical dangers without unduly crippling the ability of people to enjoy the benefits of chemicals and economic growth, including the contributions of new chemicals and economic growth to better health. This is proving enormously difficult.

• LEGISLATION PRODUCED IN REPONSE TO FEAR AND PANIC.
• SHOULD EVERYTHING BE LABELED?
• THE CONTRADICTIONS IN CURRENT PUBLIC POLICY.
• WEALTHIER IS HEALTHIER.
• GUIDES TO GOOD PUBLIC POLICY.

CONCLUSION

Ecologist William Clark has pointed out that in the Middle Ages half a million people -- ostensibly witches -- were burned at the stake.71 It was essentially impossible for accused witches to demonstrate that they did not pose a real threat to the community. They could deny that they were harmful, but they could not prove it. So with plagues and other terrible risks in prospect, how could an authority of state or church not act against a witch in defense of the community? So it is today with persons using new chemicals, biotechnology, or other innovations. Like the authorities of the Middle Ages, today's elected officials are often pressured by an outraged but ill-informed public, to act against actual and potential polluters.

There is another similarity between medieval witch hunts and current governmental programs. When witches were burned, their property was confiscated by the authorities. Businesses politically "convicted"are assessed billions of dollars in Superfund taxes and cleanup costs, and thus help to fund the agencies which prosecute them. This is not to imply that those who "go after" polluters are acting selfishly or in bad faith. Many were undoubtedly drawn to their work precisely because they believe deeply in the "anti-pollution" mission of their agencies. But the fact is that additional public outrage expands their agency budgets and thus their career possibilities. They have little incentive to stress or publicize facts which might combat the uninformed outrage of the public. For this and other reasons, the general public remains badly uninformed about the risks actually posed by man-made chemicals.

An economically strong nation is resilient. It can survive all sorts of disasters -- military attacks, natural disasters, even large policy blunders. But a less wealthy nation, such as Sri Lanka, is more vulnerable to all such risks. The fruits of small risks taken by accountable individuals and firms have added up over the decades to a very strong and healthy America. If further progress is to be prohibited if even small risks are incurred, we will ultimately find ourselves far less safe.