Harde kritiek op EPA

De Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), het Amerikaanse broertje van het Nederlandse Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieuhygiène (RIVM), heeft deze week harde kritiek gekregen van de American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), een waakhond van de volksgezondheidsector. De kritiek richt zich met name op het lichtzinnige beleid dat de EPA voert rond het onderbrengen van giftige stoffen in de categorie Carcinogeen A (humaan carcinogeen). Volgens de ACSH houdt het EPA zich niet aan de verplichte Amerikaanse eisen van kwaliteit, de Information Quality Act (IQA), wanneer ze stoffen die giftig zijn voor ratten onderbrengt in deze categorie. Ook zou het EPA haar archieven moeten zuiveren van de vele ‘junk-science’ onderzoeken die aan die classificering ten grondslag liggen.

De EPA startte in 1993 de anti-rokenhype met het, volgens velen onterecht, onderbrengen van omgevingsrook in deze categorie.

The petition, filed on behalf of ACSH by the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF), a public interest law firm, argues that current EPA guidelines violate the Information Quality Act (IQA) — the law that requires the federal government to ensure the “equality, objectivity, utility, and integrity” of information it dispenses to the public. 

Specifically, EPA routinely declares chemicals “carcinogens” — implying a likelihood of a health threat to humans — based solely on the creation of tumors in lab rodents by the administration of superhigh doses irrelevant to ordinary human exposure levels.  Furthermore, effects in a single species may not be applicable to another species (rat tests do not even reliably predict effects in mice, which are closely related to rats, let alone effects in humans), though similar effects in multiple species might be an indicator of a genuine problem.

As ACSH has explained in its report America’s War on “Carcinogens”, declaring substances “carcinogens” (when they would more properly be called high-dose rodent carcinogens) is a chief source of health panics, public outcry, activist crusades against chemicals, and waste of resources from unnecessary abatement, cleanup, and product recall/reformulation/replacement. 

EPA recently adopted Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment that provide guidance to agency personnel in making determinations that a substance is either a human carcinogen or is “likely” to be carcinogenic to humans.  The ACSH/WLF petition requests that EPA comply with the IQA by eliminating “junk science” from those Guidelines.  In particular, ACSH and WLF request that EPA eliminate statements that indicate that a substance may properly be labeled a “likely” human carcinogen based solely or primarily on the results of animal studies.  Such statements are scientifically unsound, argues the petition, which notes that the great majority of toxicologists share that assessment.

The law permits EPA, if it so chooses, to adopt policies that err on the side of caution when faced with genuinely equivocal evidence regarding a substance’s carcinogenicity, but the IQA does not permit EPA to distort the scientific evidence in furtherance of such policies.  The petition argues that EPA distorts scientific evidence through its Guidelines’ use of “default options,” its purported right — based not on scientific evidence but its regulatory mission to protect human health — to assume that tumors in lab rodents indicate that much smaller doses can cause cancer in humans.  Erring on the “safe side” in regulatory decisions does not, argues the petition, permit EPA to falsely claim that such regulated substances truly are “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” 

To do so, argues ACSH, is a distortion of both science and law.

ACSH Petitions EPA to Stop Declaring Chemicals “Carcinogens” Based on Rodent Tests Alone

Geef een reactie

Het e-mailadres wordt niet gepubliceerd. Vereiste velden zijn gemarkeerd met *

Download poster


  • "Es ist schwieriger, eine vorgefaßte Meinung zu zertrümmern als ein Atom."
    (Het is moeilijker een vooroordeel aan flarden te schieten dan een atoom.)
    Albert Einstein

  • "Als je alles zou laten dat slecht is voor je gezondheid, dan ging je kapot"
    Anonieme arts

  • "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."
    Sir Richard Doll, 2001

  • "Een leugen wordt de waarheid als hij maar vaak genoeg wordt herhaald"
    Joseph Goebbels, Minister van Propaganda, Nazi Duitsland

  • "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
    Mahatma Gandhi

  • "There''s no such thing as perfect air. If there was, God wouldn''t have put bristles in our noses"
    Coun. Bill Clement

  • "Better a smoking freedom than a non-smoking tyranny"
    Antonio Martino, Italiaanse Minister van Defensie

  • "If smoking cigars is not permitted in heaven, I won't go."
    Mark Twain

  • I've alllllllways said that asking smokers "do you want to quit?" and reporting the results of that question, as is, is horribly misleading. It's a TWO part question. After asking if one wants to quit it must be followed up with "Why?" Ask why and the majority of the answers will be "because I'm supposed to" (victims of guilt and propaganda), not "because I want to."
    Audrey Silk, NYCCLASH