Boston Globe 3/4/03: New US rules to allow higher exposure to chemicals

[Guest guest]

From what I understand, mycotoxins are also on these lists, as they are on various states' hazardous substances listings. I wonder what they will do adjust those levels?

THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

New US rules to allow higher exposure to chemicals

Critics say change to give industry greater influence

By Shogren, Los Angeles Times, 3/4/2003

WASHINGTON - The Environmental Protection Agency proposed yesterday to overhaul guidelines for assessing whether chemicals or other substances pose cancer risks. The new procedures generally would permit higher exposure to such chemicals, officials said.

For the first time, the agency proposed supplemental guidelines for gauging risks to children. Children are more susceptible to some toxic chemicals than adults.

Environmental groups called the special guidelines for children a step in the right direction, but they warned that the general guidelines would allow industry to challenge assessments.

''Strongly pushed by industry, EPA is moving in the direction to regulate fewer chemicals as cancer-causing agents,'' said K. Olson, a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council. ''In the long run, it is going to have profoundly bad effects on public health.''

The chemical and pesticide industries, whose products are often the focus of cancer risk assessments, applauded the approach. Those industries have pressed the EPA for years to give more weight to the difference between the ways humans and animals are affected by chemicals. Traditionally, the cancer risk assessments have been based on tests on laboratory animals.

The new proposal would ''emphasize the best available science to guide policy makers and to inform the public,'' said VandenHeuvel, spokesman for the Chemistry Council, which represents most large chemical makers.

The guidelines are expected to be made final as early as this summer. Under them, the public would be given descriptions of the risks posed by chemicals and the ways in which individuals could be exposed.

Officials said that chemicals would be less likely to be assessed as having high cancer risks, because government scientists would draw on broader scientific evidence when making their evaluations.

''More often than not, as we get better knowledge, it's likely that the estimates of the risks will be coming down,'' said H. Farland, acting deputy assistant EPA administrator for science.

But Farland stressed that government scientists would fall back on the old system if there is too much uncertainty in the available scientific data. The new approach will represent no lessened protection for public health but will be informed by better science, Farland said.

In fact, the additional data may provide government scientists with clues about population groups, such as children, that are more susceptible to developing cancer from particular chemicals.

''There might be a higher risk for a subpopulation as the general risk goes down,'' said Cogliano, chairman of the cancer guidelines writing group.

A recently completed cancer risk assessment for chloroform, a chemical produced when chlorine is used to treat drinking water, serves as an example of how EPA scientists would use the new guidelines, Farland said.

Because chloroform caused cancer in laboratory animals, it probably would have been judged a carcinogen under the old rules. But EPA scientists determined that there is no cancer risk unless certain organs are damaged, Farland said. So chloroform was judged to be a cancer risk only in high doses.

Olson said those kinds of procedures give industry an upper hand. ''The burden of proof comes on EPA to show industry arguments aren't valid,'' Olson said.

And most of EPA's data, he said, comes from studies funded by companies that are trying to keep their chemicals from being labeled as carcinogens.

Farland dismissed the concern that industry would have more influence over the process. He stressed that under the new guidelines, government scientists would analyze a wide variety of information from government agencies and academic institutions. The evaluations would also be subject to peer review.

This story ran on page A3 of the Boston Globe on 3/4/2003.

© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.