From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 05:30:52 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.013029.3186@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch) writes:
}As I warned, this may be a FAQ; I haven't followed this newsgroup.
}
}There is much in libertarian socio-political philosophy which is
}appealing. However, I'm not sure how libertarians would approach
}certain common societal problems that, IMHO, seem to cry out for
}governmental regulation. Examples of these would be 1) distant
}consequences (eg, pharmaceuticals - I might discover and market a great
}treatment for acne but not perform sufficient preclinical safety
}testing. A generation later (when my company no longer exists) it
}becomes apparent that 10% of the people who took my medication have
}genetically defective offspring. In this context the Byzantine
}regulations of the FDA actually seem appropriate).

This sort of scenario is used to justify prior restraint of anthropogenic
chemicals, however it has some problems.

One of the major ones is the risk-assessment.  The FDA and EPA employ a double
standard for chemicals.  Anthropogenic (man-made) ones are presumed guilty
until proven innocent, and biogenic ones are presumed innocent until proven
guilty.  This isn't a scientific conclusion, but a prejudice held by scientific
bigots.

The evidence doesn't support it, according to scientists who actually do
comparative risk-assessment, like Dr. Bruce Ames, chairman of the Bio department
here at UC Berkeley, and inventor of the Ames test for carcinogenicity.
According to him, the EPA's maximum allowable dose of dioxin (public enemy
#1!) is less carcinogenic than a glass of orange juice due to the presence of
biogenic alcohols in it.  This is just an example.  I think I have a newspaper
article online about the results of his latest research.

The general conclusion is that anthropogenic chemicals must also be presumed
innocent until proven guilty, which leaves the sort of scenario above to the
realm of tort law and insurance.

This sounds harsh for those unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of
such an accident, but its nothing compared to the horrors of prior restraint.
I just posted an article to talk.politics.medicine on how the FDA murders
100,000 people annually from one policy alone.  The FDA has the blood of
every person who has died from delays or bans on drugs all over them, and
its enough for them to drown in.

2) Threshold effects
}(an example of this might be the clean air regulations. Individually,
}no one's car really generates that much obvious air pollution. In the
}aggregate, though, a tremendous amount of noxious waste is generated
}with profound health and environmental effects for all. Experience has
}proven that in the absence of effective legislation and enforcement,
}individual polluters are unlikely to take the unprofitable and
}bothersome steps necessary to mitigate the effects of their actions.)
}
}What is the party line, so to speak, on these issues?

This sort of thing would be a class action tort, relievable by injunction or
lawsuit, if it occurred.

That said, I've read of scientists who seriously challenge the notion that
anthropogenic pollution is the major risk, such as Hugh Ellsaesser of Lawrence
Livermore Labs.  He quotes a former LA Air Quality Management District
official as saying that if pollution laws had to be justifed on public health
grounds that there wouldn't be any grounds or laws!

Do you know of any comparative risk-assessment research that supports the
claim that biogenic pollution is less risky than anthropogenic?

Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian