^®: CRE Regulatory Action of the Week

NAS Panel Does Not Recommend Additional Regulation of Dioxin

Dioxin is certainly one of the most controversial chemicals in recent history. As a result of this controversy EPA conducted a ten year study and concluded that background levels constitute a risk. This conclusion was opposed by a number of groups. Consequently EPA referred the issue to the National Academy of Science. The Academy concluded: "Because the risks posed by the amount of dioxins found in foods have yet to be determined, we are recommending simple, prudent steps to further reduce dioxin exposure while data are gathered that will clarify the risks," said Robert Lawrence, a Johns Hopkins University associate dean and chair of the committee that wrote the NAS report.

This is precisely the arguments made by the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness years ago in court.

Tozzi v. EPA, (D.D.C. Civ. No. 98-00169)

Paperwork Reduction Act challenge to EPA's proposed "Sector Facility Indexing Project", which would have employed a "toxicity weighting factors" model that EPA's own Science Advisory Board had rejected. The agency had intended to place this reformulated TRI data on the Internet, ostensibly to allow easy "toxicity" comparisons of releases across five industry sectors.

Read the court documents:

EPA Dioxin Reporting Rule Prompts New Litigation

The Tozzi Decision: Another Arrow in Manufacturers' Quiver in Product Defense Wars

Had the Data Quality been enacted at that time, the controversy would have been over years ago, with less cost and uncertainty.