As part of its effort to control air pollution, the Environmental
Protection Agency has instituted a strict new set of particulate
standards with which, incidentally, nature itself frequently falls
out of compliance. In doing so, EPA administrator Carol Browner
disregarded the findings of the EPA's own Clean Air Scientific
Advisory Committee that low levels of the smaller smoke and dust
particles the regulations target were not found to cause any negative
health effects. The President's Council of Economic Advisers has
estimated the new regulations will cost industry and consumers $60
billion a year. However, assuring the public that the regulations
would reduce asthma attacks, Browner firmly declared, "When it comes
to protecting our kids, I will not be swayed."
But science journalist Michael Fumento notes that there appears to be
an inverse correlation between asthma and pollution rates, with
asthma rates increasing in America as air pollution has diminished.
Comparisons of high-polluting countries, such as East Germany and
Poland, with nations with strong pollution-control measures, such as
West Germany and Sweden, indicate higher rates of asthma in countries
with less pollution. Ben Lieberman, a policy analyst at the
Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, comments that this
may be due to the prevalence of energy-efficient buildings, which have
ventilation systems that seal in and circulate dust. Some medical
authorities even believe the asthma increase is due to suppressed
immune response to diseases children in more advanced countries no
longer contract. The
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
determined that the leading cause of asthma among children is
an allergic reaction to cockroach droppings and carcasses.
In addition to its efforts to reduce smoke particulates, the EPA, in
conjunction with the Food and Drug Administration, is seeking a ban on
asthma inhalers that use chlorofluorocarbons. Such inhalers have
previously been exempt from CFC bans proscribed by the Montreal
Protocols because they were considered a medical necessity and because
they account for only about 1 percent of atmospheric chlorine, which
some think leads to damage of the ozone layer. By banning the
inhalers, the EPA hopes to comply with a more strict extension of the
original treaty.
George Washington University medical researcher Robert Goldberg
criticizes the ban, noting that low-income asthmatic children tend to
use the CFC-propelled inhalers the most because they are one-eighth
the cost of non-CFC brands. Asthma specialists have also determined
that, since inhalers may cause various side effects, it is best for
there to be as wide a selection as possible. Goldberg also notes that
the rising cost of inhalers may be a contributing factor to the 300
percent increase in asthma-related deaths among children between 1980
and 1993.
But Drusilla Hufford, acting director of the EPA's stratospheric
protection division, defends the ban: "The problem for the ozone
layer is that if the U.S. were to argue that our remaining uses are so
small that we ought to be allowed to continue using them indefinitely,
it's likely that a lot of other countries would make similar arguments
about their uses, and the result of that kind of change would be a
problem for the ozone layer."
The FDA received more than 9,000 comments from medical groups,
physicians and asthmatics; all but 50 were opposed to the new
regulations, including the American Medical Association
and the Joint Council of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology. Among the
supporters is the 3M company, manufacturer of the only FDA-approved
inhaler that does not use CFCs. (Using a mailing list provided by 3M,
the FDA even sent medical professionals a letter urging them to use
3M's inhalers.)
The American Lung Association
also supports the CFC inhaler ban—the same group that spearheaded
the stringent air quality standards in the name of asthma
sufferers. When asked about possible high costs of new inhalers
without competition, ALA Deputy Managing Director Fran DuMelle
suggests price controls on new inhalers as a "real solution to a free
market which says 'I need to recoup my R&D expenses within the first
five years.' "
[Ed.: Initially, leading CFC manufacturer DuPont
provided crucial support for the Montreal Protocols, which call for
phasing out CFCs, while simultaneously insisting that CFCs do no
significant damage to the ozone layer. There is a plausible reason for
this curious position: CFC substitutes are relatively costly to
manufacture and entail increased safety regulation, effectively
putting smaller competitors at a disadvantage while maintaining high
profits. As an international ban, the Protocols would also increase
the negligible market share of American manufacturers worldwide. As
the industry learned, however, much of the benefit they counted on
quickly evaporated in 1990 as Congress enacted a "windfall profits"
tax on the industry.
In May 1999, a federal appeals court blocked the administration's
air-quality standards, having found them unguided by any
"intelligible principles" other than the sort of inexplicable policy
whims that are normally reserved for Congress. The court also found
that in performing the required cost/benefit analysis, the EPA had
ignored the potential costs of a reduction in ground-level ozone,
where research suggests it may perform much the same vital role in
filtering out ultraviolet radiation as stratospheric ozone famously
does.]
†