1.

Record Nr.

UNINA9910813930903321

Autore

Harrison Kathryn <1958->

Titolo

Risk, science, and politics : regulating toxic substances in Canada and the United States / / Kathryn Harrison and George Hoberg

Pubbl/distr/stampa

Montreal ; ; Buffalo, : McGill-Queen's University Press, c1994

ISBN

1-282-85718-5

9786612857188

0-7735-6505-1

Edizione

[1st ed.]

Descrizione fisica

1 online resource (xiii, 235 pages)

Altri autori (Persone)

HobergGeorge

Disciplina

363.7/00971

Soggetti

Hazardous substances - Law and legislation - Canada

Hazardous substances - Law and legislation - United States

Lingua di pubblicazione

Inglese

Formato

Materiale a stampa

Livello bibliografico

Monografia

Note generali

Bibliographic Level Mode of Issuance: Monograph

Nota di bibliografia

Includes bibliographical references (p. [185]-228) and index.

Nota di contenuto

Front Matter -- Contents -- Preface -- Abbreviations -- Policy Making amid Scientific Uncertainty -- Cancer Risk Assessment: Concepts and Controversies -- Between Science and Politics: Assessing the Risks of Dioxins -- Forbidden Fruit: Regulating the Pesticides Alachlor and Alar -- Paternalism vs Consumer Choice:Regulation of Saccharin in Canada and the United States* -- Political Insulation: The Rise and Fall of Urea-Formaldehyde Foam* -- Acceptable Risks? Regulating Asbestos in Canada and the U.S.* -- The Perils of Paternalism: Controlling Radon Exposure in Canadian and U.S. Homes -- Conclusion: Risk, Science, and Public Policy -- Notes -- Index

Sommario/riassunto

Paying particular attention to how politicians and bureaucrats in the two countries deal with the scientific uncertainty that pervades environmental decision making, Harrison and Hoberg analyse case studies of seven controversial substances suspected of causing cancer in humans: the pesticides Alar and alachlor, urea-formaldehyde foam insulation, radon gas, dioxin, saccharin, and asbestos. They weigh the strengths and weaknesses of each country's approach according to five criteria: stringency and timeliness of the regulatory decision, balancing of risks and benefits by decision makers, opportunities for public participation, and the interpretation of science in regulatory decision



making. The Canadian approach is exemplified by closed decision making, case-by-case review that relies heavily on expert judgement, and limited public debate about the scientific basis of regulatory decisions. In contrast, regulatory science in the United States is characterized by publication of lengthy rationales for regulatory decisions, reliance on standardized procedures for risk assessment, and controversy surrounding the interpretation of scientific evidence.