Praise for the E.P.A. from an unlikely source

Could it be? This is pretty amazing:

A remarkable thing happened here last week: the Environmental Protection Agency announced a set of guidelines, and environmental groups were largely complimentary in response.

The agency's new approach to assessing chemicals that might cause cancer won praise for replacing guidelines that were nearly 20 years old and for taking into account, for the first time, the likelihood that children may be more vulnerable to exposure than adults.

"These guidelines are enhanced by information that allows us to understand how a chemical is working," said Dr. William H. Farland, the agency's acting deputy assistant administrator for science. "They suggest we have moved forward with the use of the best science available."

More below the fold.

The E.P.A.'s carcinogen risk guidelines were first published in 1986. In successive years, the guidelines were given extensive external review.

The NYT article summarizes:

In recent years... a growing number of studies have refined efforts to analyze the impact of chemicals on humans, in some cases leading agency scientists to determine that substances harmful to animals do not necessarily pose risks for humans. Newer studies also show that some substances may be more harmful to humans than once thought. Dr. Farland cited research that now suggests that benzene, a chemical used in the manufacture of a variety of products, is a potential threat to humans at lower levels than previous studies showed.

The new guidelines also reflect how more recent studies show the differences between cancer-causing chemicals in adults and young children, recognizing the possibility that children younger than 2 might be 10 times more at risk and children from 2 to 16 might be 3 times more at risk.

(You can read about the benzene research here.)

One of the groups praising the E.P.A.'s new guidelines is the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), although they imply that anything the E.P.A. does should be taken with a small grain of salt:

Mr. Walke [of the NRDC] also suggested that the agency's efforts to consider all available science to reduce the risk of cancer contrast with its approach to solving other problems, including efforts to reduce mercury emissions from the nation's 1,300 coal-fired power plants. The mercury regulations, announced last month, use a cap-and-trade program as opposed to the approach used by the Clinton administration, which forced plant operators to use the best technology available. The cap-and-trade system, in which plant operators can buy pollution credits from plants with emissions below a certain level, is already under attack from nine states, including New York and New Jersey, which sued the agency last week over the mercury rule, and from environmental groups that have petitioned the agency to return to the Clinton approach.

Obviously, whether or not the E.P.A. is hand-in-hand with the Bush administration remains to be seen. It's a complex question with no clear answers.

As my rather cynical environmental organic chemistry professor used to say (regarding the E.P.A.), "Fish don't vote."

Comments

[JollyBuddah]

I probably should learn what this trackback stuff is and how it works. FWIW, I just posted a diary building on your story at MyDD, C Boyden Gray Is A Liar

I thought about turning the title into an interrogatory. Naahh. That wouldn't be rude enough. Intentionally omitting cites seems like proof of intentional deceit to me. Great story Kagro X.

[JollyBuddah]

oops!