From: Stefan.M.Gorsch@dartmouth.edu (Stefan M. Gorsch)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Might be a FAQ
Date: 23 Dec 92 23:51:01 GMT
 <1992Dec23.053052.11058@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
X-Posted-From: InterNews1.0a5@newshost.dartmouth.edu

In article <1992Dec23.053052.11058@genie.slhs.udel.edu>
starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr) writes:

>} how (would) 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.....
> 
> 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.

Essentially, then, the libertarian position seems to be caveat emptor.
While this may have been reasonable in the good ol' days of snake oil
and "patent medicine" it is clearly (to me, at least) inappropriate to
the current epoch. Today both entrepeneurs and mass marketers are far
too adept at manipulating the media to create consumer demand for a
variety of useless (or worse) products. In the case of medicine, the
average consumer (even the sophisticated consumer) clearly does not
have the resources to evaluate the safety and efficacy of
pharmaceutical health claims. Because toxic adverse effects can occur
weeks, months or even decades following use of the offending medicine
(eg.Radium, DES, Thalaldomide) the absence of a regulatory agency to 1)
evaluate safety & efficacy and 2) track complications over time could
be disastrous and legal remediation in many instances would be nigh
impossible. Complete deregulation of pharmaceuticals would be a bonanza
for unscrupulous or simply naive entrepeneurs and a nightmare for
everyone else. As an oncologist, I've already treated too many patients
who have turned to "alternative medical treatments" to their detriment.

> 
BTW, The Ames test is a wonderful test of mutagenicity but a lousy test
of carcinogenicity. However, that's simply an argument for  the
development of better tests not one for scrapping tests altogether.
Similarly, as an oncologist I have my quibbles with the FDA but I would
argue that trying to improve its efficiency is far better than working
to curtail its activity.

> 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.

As I understand this, you are saying that no regulatory agency such as
the EPA is needed. Instead, individuals could file class action suits
to force polluters (would this be individual car owners or automakers?)
to curtail their polluting activity. For this to work there need be 1)
environmental legislation upon which such suits could be based and 2)
some means of evaluation and enforcement. To adequately draft
environmental legislation one needs an organization that has the
ability to sit down with scientists, environmentalists, business and
public interest gropups and formulate reasonable compromise
recommendations (hence the EPA). To accurately monitor air pollution
levels throughout the country and trace its sources is, I believe
beyond the capabilities of even the best tort law firm or public
watchdog group.

So, we're back to my original query. Though I personally subscribe to
much libertarian doctrine, there really do seem to be things which the
government is in a postion to do better than the private sector.

> 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?


stefan.m.gorsch@dartmouth.edu