Risk management strategy under the toxic substances control act and the federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act

Abstract

The Federal government has at its disposal a variety of statutes which address themselves to the management of risks attendant on the use of chemical substances in our technologically complex society. Key among these are the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA), the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA), the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), and the several statutes under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The present discussion is concerned with risk management strategies under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). The legal restrictions on risk management options vary considerably over the various statutes listed above. If one examines the listed statutes in a chronological series, there is a suggestion of an evolution in legislative thinking as science and society have become more sophisticated. There is certainly a world of difference between the zero risk simplicity of the Delaney clause in FDCA [21 USC 348(c) (A)] and the risk-benefit balancing mandated by TSCA [ 15 USC 260 1 et seq.] and FIFRA [7 USC 136 et seq.}. Before proceeding with the discussion of risk management concepts under TSCA and FIFRA, it is worthwhile to place some perspective on the question of risk-benefit balancing as practiced by EPA. Many persons believe that risk-benefit balancing is the balancing of economic costs vs human health risks. This is simply not feasible since it requires placing a dollar value on human health. By saying “not feasible” it is not to imply that people do not associate dollar values with their health-anyone who purchases health or life