Editor's Page
Regulators: reform thyselves Stuart Statler is one of five commissioners on the Consumer Product Safety Commission. He was appointed by President Carter last August. Earlier this month he addressed the Western Safety Congress in Anaheim, Calif. Following are some excerpts from his prepared text. There is a troubling movement afoot in this country which poses a direct threat to health and safety goals. In America today there is a dangerous backlash developing against government regulation in any way, shape, or form. The popular view is that if the government is involved at all, it's bad; and if the government is regulating, it's worse. As the economy plunges into the long-predicted recession, we hear anguished cries that this debacle could have been avoided if only we had prevented overzealous government regulators from tying the hands of American industry with costly and burdensome regulations. As the number of unemployed Americans climbs past 7 million, as inflation soars to 18% a year, and as both federal spending and taxes reach staggering new highs, antigovernment sentiment (and, therefore, antiregulatory fervor) merely intensifies. There are those who will try—indeed, have tried—to exploit these sentiments in an effort to roll back the hard-fought health, safety, and environmental victories of recent years. They will claim that the costs of consumer protection are too prohibitive, that the costs are more than we can now afford. There are still those of us who believe that the quality of life cannot be gauged solely as a function of gross national product. We must be ready to stand fast by our actions when they are defensible, but be willing to adopt new techniques where old ones fail. If, as regulators, we lock ourselves into time-worn tactics or losing strategies, we run the very real risk of consummate failure in today's changed environment. As we enter a period in which economic conditions will likely deteriorate further, we face an uphill battle. The halcyon days of the 70's are behind us; we can no longer simply assume that we enjoy widespread popular support. Depending upon the immediacy and degree of tragic consequences of the matters over which we regulate, we may or we may not have the public siding with us. We must adapt to the changed circumstances. Serving as a member of a federal regulatory agency, I view the regulatory reform movement with keen personal interest. Many consumer and public interest advocates argue that regulatory reform is nothing more than a euphemism for regulatory emasculation. I disagree. I believe that the time has come—whether we like it or not—for government regulators to take a more searching look at the consequences of their actions. In this current environment, such introspection is all the more warranted: For if we don't reform ourselves, there are those who stand ready to reform us right out of business. As the British statesman Lord Macaulay observed in Parliament over 150 years ago, "Reform, that you may preserve." Acutely aware of all the havoc associated with increasingly threatening storm clouds, regulatory officials are undergoing some rigorous soul-searching. Some might call it a catharsis. Because of the changed political and economic mood of the country, regulators are today learning to be more cautious about attacking every problem through highly detailed and restrictive regulations. Subtlety, flexibility, and ingenuity are needed. This willingness to try new approaches to enhancing public health and safety lies at the core of regulatory reform. Ultimately, the success or failure of regulatory reform will hinge upon the ability of regulators to differentiate those serious problems that cry out for regulation from those that can be addressed in other ways, or need not be addressed at all. By setting priorities and devoting the necessary resources to achieving those goals, regulators can overcome their historic affinity for overextending their areas of interest. The bottom line of responsible regulation is acting when it is required by the public interest, and not out of a desire for bureaucratic empire building. •
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
May 19, 1980C&EN
5
