Issue 92: The most potent carcinogen?

The effects of chemical substances on human health and the standards that should be applied to regulate their presence are questions that continue to concern policymakers. In keeping with RFF's long tradition of research on problems of environmental quality, this issue of Resources contains three articles that shed light on this area of debate.

Risks posed by dioxin, widely known for its presence in Agent Orange, are examined in an article by Michael Gough. He argues that while dioxin is the most potent carcinogen yet tested in animals, its precise effects on human health remain an enigma. He highlights factors we should bear in mind as the Environmental Protection Agency continues to reevaluate dioxins carcinogenic potency.

Ground-level ozone poses its own potential health risks. Sixty-eight out of 216 mostly urban areas in our nation continue to violate the current standard for permissible levels of this highly reactive gas while pressure grows to tighten the standard still further. As Alan J. Krupnick explains in his article, deciding whether a push for compliance with the existing standard or setting a tighter standard is "worth it" involves looking at both the costs and the benefits involved.

In their article on sorting out the environmental benefits of alternative agriculture, Pierre R. Crosson and Janet Ekey Ostrov point out that there are significant health risks in handling pesticides under conventional farming methods. They caution that although turning to alternative methods would appear to yield "real and significant" benefits both for human health and for wildlife habitat, farmers' decisions on agricultural methods are business decisions—and that alternative agriculture still finds itself at a distinct economic disadvantage.

Finally, a fourth article—this one by Robert M. Schwab—provides us with a thought-provoking piece on environmental federalism. We can step back from considering dilemmas over particular substances and specific standards and instead ask ourselves, who should be at the helm in setting environmental policy? As Schwab tells us, allowing states and local governments to assume policy responsibilities may result in compliance standards that encourage new industry but are counterproductive to the health of neighboring regions and future generations. Yet a centralized approach can impose onerous financial burdens on specific locales that may more than offset the gains. Like our other authors, Schwab argues that objective scrutiny and more knowledge on the subject could go a long way toward better environmental quality and better decision making.

— Elaine Koerner, Senior Editor