Advertisement

Fear, Fiat, and Fiasco: Causation in Cancer Risk Assessment

  • Paolo F. Ricci
  • Andrea F. Henderson
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 43)

Abstract

Causation is a central issue in toxic tort cases as it must be proven by the plaintiff to prevail against a defendant. If a tort action deals with obvious cause, causation may not be the focal point of the case and the central issue may turn to defining a product’s defect or determining liability. Causation becomes the focal point when the link between cause and effect cannot easily be determined. Where such links have been needed in science and regulation, the process of risk assessment has been heavily relied on. However, considering recent tort cases and regulatory decisions, questions exist as to the reliability of risk assessment given uncertain cause and effect, its relevance in court, and its usefulness in regulation.

Keywords

Cancer Risk Assessment Nuclear Regulatory Commission Consumer Product Safety Commission Judicial Scrutiny Tort Case 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    L.S. Molton and P.F. Ricci. Increased risk in science and law. Toxics Law Reporter. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. October 8, 1986.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Metropolitan Edison Co. v. NRC, 1033 SCt 1556 (1983).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, 27 Cal3rd 916, 616 P2d 813 (1980).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Environmental Production Agency. Guidelines for carcinogenic risk assessment. Fed. Regist. 51:33991 (1986).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Battelle Columbus Laboratories. Final report on a chronic inhalation study in rats and mice exposed to formaldehyde, report to: Chemical Industry Institute of Technology, submitted September 18, 1981; revised December 31, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    R.E. Albert, A.R. Sellakumer, S. Laskin, M. Kuschner, N. Nelson, and D.A. Snyder. Gaseous formaldehyde and hydrogen chloride induction of cancer in the rat. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 68:597 (1986).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Report of the Federal Panel on Formaldehyde. Environ. Health Perspect. 43:139(1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Formaldehyde: evidence of carcinogenicity. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Intelligence Bulletin 34, Cincinnati, Ohio (1981).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    American Cancer Society. Board of Directors Proceedings. February 1982.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. 1985. Occupational exposure to formaldehyde; proposed rule and notice of public rulemaking. Fed. Regist. 50:50421 (1985).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gulf South Insulation v. U.S. Consumer Product Safety Comm., 701 F2nd 1137 (1983).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Regulatory Council. Statement on regulation of chemical carcinogens: Policy request for public comments. Fed. Regist. 44:660038 (1979).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    N.A. Ashford, C.W. Ryan, and C.C. Caldart. A hard look at federal regulation of formaldehyde; a departure from reasoned decision making. Harv. Environ. Law Rev. 7:297(1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Office of Technology Assessment. Assessment of Technologies for Determining Cancer Risks from the Environment. Washington, D.C. (1981).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paolo F. Ricci
    • 1
  • Andrea F. Henderson
    • 1
  1. 1.Joint Research CenterEuropean CommunitiesIspraItaly

Personalised recommendations