Evaluating Dioxin

Jonathan Adler’s column (“Dioxin Joins List of Costly False Alarms,” Column Right, Aug. 19) criticizes the Environmental Protection Agency over its handling of the toxic chemical dioxin as an “example of science being ignored by those who direct environmental policy.” Other examples of this phenomena Adler points to were government funding of research on acid rain and “alarmists’ fears that pesticide residues such as Alar in apples could cause cancer.” The thrust of Adler’s position seems to be that so long as there is scientific uncertainty about health and environmental hazards, we should withhold taking any preventive action. This reasoning is entirely wrongheaded since, within the scientific community, such certainty is often long in coming and, in the interim, human health is left in jeopardy.

It should be noted that acid rain remains a serious environmental concern, and the EPA jury is still out on dioxin. Alar, a potent carcinogen, has now been banned by EPA, the public health is better protected and there were no appreciable effects on apple yields or quality.

Adler suggests that “several noted scientists are challenging the validity of animal tests . . . to determine the human cancer risks from various substances.” This is true. It has been true for more than a decade. But it is a classic non sequitur to then conclude that our longstanding cancer policy of avoiding human exposure to chemicals found to cause this disease in animals should now be reversed. Instead, the burden of proof should be placed squarely upon those exposing the public to toxic chemicals to affirmatively demonstrate their safety and their essentiality.

While these issues continue to be debated, cancer also continues to take its toll. Thus, since 1950, according to the National Cancer Institute, cancer among children has increased 21.5%. In just the past 15 years, brain tumors in children have increased more than 30%, and leukemia more than 10%. Cancer is now the No. 1 disease killer of children after the first year of life. Other forms of cancer also are on the rise.

Given these human costs, our policy should be to err on the side of caution, prevent or reduce our exposure to toxic substances and not rely on science to be our savior.

AL MEYERHOFF, Senior Attorney

Natural Resources Defense Council

San Francisco