Risks: How to get more science in assessments A proposed, independent board within the National Research Council would provide standard procedures for estimating the health effects of human exposure to hazardous chemicals, drugs, and food additives When federal agencies reach a stalemate on a scientific issue, Congress often goes to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for a study. One of the latest problems referred to the NAS deals with chemicals and public exposure to them. One scientific issue still unsettled is the determination of the cancer risk associated with the exposure of humans to toxic substances. It’s a controversial topic, and for many years the regulation of suspect carcinogens by federal agencies has come under fire. In the recent past, for example, decisions on saccharin, nitrites in food, formaldehyde, asbestos, air pollutants and a host of other chemicals have been called into question. The evidence on the health effects of a few chemicals, such as asbestos, has been clear; however, in most cases the evidence is meager, indirect, and inconclusive. Although there is no legal requirement for risk assessment in any present law, federal agencies have been involved in such activity before establishing their regulations. But agencies that perform risk assessments are often hard pressed to present the scientific basis for their regulatory decisions clearly and convincingly. In the past, these agencies have confused the science issues and policy issues; consequently many of their decisions in regulating chemicals associated with chronic health hazards have been bitterly controversial. One problem has been that the agency doing the risk assessment is the agency that eventually regulates a specific chemical. For the past one-and-one-half years, a committee of the NAS has grappled 0013-936X/83/0916-0199ASO1.50/0
yde
Asbestos
Nitrites
@ 1983 American Chemical Society
N i trites
baccnarin
Formaldehyde
Asbestos
Pol:
Pollutants tos
,’
P
