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.]
