英语论文网

ickest, most cynical fear campaigns in recent American history (424).' To back his claim, he reviews the progress of regulatory action on Alar and demonstrates how the NRDC's actions were untenable given the conclusions reached as to Alar's toxicity. A brief time-line of the events begins with the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) recommending that Alar be banned, based on scientific studies from the 1970s and 80s. Shortly after, a Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) met and thoroughly discounted the EPA's decision as based on outdated science employing methods and standards which were no longer scientifically acceptable. Fumento goes on to review scores of independents reviewers who uphold the SAP's decision and denounce the EPA for eventually banning Alar due mainly to pressure from the NRDC and other citizen groups. It is this NRDC pressure, which accepted the initial EPA decision and rejected the SAP recommendation, which Fumento recounts as 'a touchdown of terror,' based on ''inappropriate data'' and specious reasoning (425, 422, 422).

II: 'Environmental Hysteria' vs Scientific 'Fanatics'

If Fumento is correct in the further progression of events after the 1985 meeting of the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs with the SAP, then it is fairly clear that these groups did act out of accordance with scientific opinion. However, even assuming that he is correct, we might still decide that they were justified in their beliefs about the dangers of Alar and even justified in their 'media hype'(422). Fumento would undoubtedly disagree that I could prove such a claim, because the later invalidation of their position because for him further scientific studies necessarily pulls the rug out from under any justification they might have. However, it is with his idea that absolute scientific knowledge is the only justifiable knowledge that I object. Below I will briefly lay out the three major reasons why the NRDC was justified in its position and actions despite countervailing scientific opinion. The fourth reason leads me into a discussion of the precautionary principle, in section III.

Firstly, the NRDC had good reason to believe that there was scientific opinion behind them. The Toth and other contemporaneous scientific studies of the toxicity of Alar were published in respected scientific journals. In order to have been admitted into the journals, they must have met with the approval of the peer reviewing scientists, and thus, they had every mark of veritable science.

Secondly, they had the weight of the calculated and reasoned decision of the EPA behind them. In general, the analysts of the OPP 'knew from experience that perfect (or state of the art) toxicity studies were rarely available for substances regulated under FIFRA [(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act)] (119).' Thus, based on their examination of the data for Alar, they concluded that '[b]y comparison with that of many other products, the toxicological dossier on diaminozide appeared more complete and consistent (119). The SAP rejected OPP's determination as based on ill -performed and inadequate scientific methodology. However, especially given the EPA's mission to 'safeguard public health,' the NRDC justifiably saw OPP's conclusion as 'seemingly on the basis of well-established principles of decision-making. The data were strong enough to support a qualitative determi