Environmental law applications of hormesis concepts: Risk assessment and cost-benefit implications

被引:0
|
作者
Juni, RL [1 ]
McElveen, JC [1 ]
机构
[1] Jones Day Reavis & Pogue, Environm Hlth & Safety Practice, Washington, DC 20001 USA
关键词
hormesis; risk assessment; cost-benefit; risk-benefit; risk-risk trade-off; regulatory policy; OSH Act; FQPA; CAA; environmental law;
D O I
10.1002/(SICI)1099-1263(200003/04)20:2<149::AID-JAT647>3.3.CO;2-Z
中图分类号
R99 [毒物学(毒理学)];
学科分类号
100405 ;
摘要
This article focuses on legal structures that influence the degree to which hormesis can be incorporated into environmental law and policy. Three statutes-the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Food Quality Protection Act, and the Clean Air Act-are used to illustrate the varied ways in which Congress, agencies and the courts have approached risk assessment and cost-benefit analyses that are relevant to the hormesis issue. This discussion features several examples of regulations and judicial decisions that have begun to recognize hermetic effects. The article concludes that hormesis concepts could be incorporated effectively into present risk assessment and cost-benefit mechanisms. In the contest of agency action, an express policy decision might be made to broaden the typical scope of risk assessment and cost-benefit processes by including hermetic effects. In the judicial context, recognition of hormesis may occur where relevant statutory language is read to contemplate that an agency will consider both the beneficial and the detrimental effects of a particular substance in formulating regulations; in this circumstance, a reviewing court could reverse an agency decision that focuses solely on detrimental effects and ignores hermetic effects. Based on these evolving trends, the time may be ripe to seek further incorporation of hormesis concepts into environmental law and policy decisions. Copyright (C) 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
引用
收藏
页码:149 / 155
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] UNUSUAL APPLICATIONS OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
    STOLZ, P
    JAHRBUCH FUR SOZIALWISSENSCHAFT, 1975, 26 (02): : 189 - 201
  • [22] Cost-benefit assessment of BLGCC technology
    Larson, Eric D.
    McDonald, George W.
    Yang, Wenrui
    Frederick, William James
    Iisa, Kristiina
    Kreutz, Thomas G.
    Malcolm, Earl W.
    Brown, Craig A.
    TAPPI Journal, 2000, 83 (06):
  • [23] The standing of foreign lenders in cost-benefit analysis: some implications for environmental appraisals
    Jorge-Calderon, Doramas
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 2021, 10 (03) : 261 - 277
  • [24] Cost-benefit risk of renewable energy
    Hsu, K. -J.
    ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND INVESTMENT ASSESSMENT III, 2010, 131 : 85 - 94
  • [25] NUCLEAR-MEDICINE PRACTICE, COST-BENEFIT AND RISK ASSESSMENT - AN INTRODUCTION
    ELL, PJ
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY, 1986, 50 (03) : 556 - 558
  • [26] Concepts and application of cost-benefit evaluation in an international overview
    Greiner, Wolfgang
    Witte, Julian
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAET IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN, 2022, 174 : 111 - 118
  • [27] Risk-Based Cost-Benefit Analysis for Security Assessment Problems
    Wyss, Gregory D.
    Clem, John F.
    Darby, John L.
    Dunphy-Guzman, Katherine
    Hinton, John P.
    Mitchiner, Kim W.
    44TH ANNUAL 2010 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CARNAHAN CONFERENCE ON SECURITY TECHNOLOGY, 2010, : 286 - 295
  • [29] A risk and cost-benefit assessment of United States aviation security measures
    Mark G. Stewart
    John Mueller
    Journal of Transportation Security, 2008, 1 (3) : 143 - 159
  • [30] Individual patient risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis of patiromer in AMBER
    O'Sullivan, Eoin D.
    MacIntyre, Iain M.
    LANCET, 2020, 396 (10247): : 311 - 311