Attitudes Toward Risk-Benefit Analysis for Managing Effects of Chemical Exposures

  • J. L. Regens
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 12)


Environmental policymaking has become more dependent on the use of formal, quantitative risk-benefit analysis as a basis for establishing regulations. This is largely because of increasing emphasis on the prevention of adverse human health effects attributable to exposures to toxic chemicals. For example, risk assessment helps to set priorities for the regulation of the very large number of chemicals which are of potential concern by ranking those chemicals in terms of their possible carcinogenic or other health hazards (see Ames et al., 1987). Moreover, when linked to benefit-cost studies, risk assessment can help direct limited societal resources to prevent or mitigate the most significant risks (see also Chapters 4 and 5 of this volume; Rycroft et al., forthcoming; Russell and Gruber, 1987; Lave, 1987).


Risk Assessment Environmental Protection Agency Chemical Exposure North Atlantic Treaty Organization Strong Majority 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ames, B. N., Magaw, R., and Gold, L. S., 1987, “Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards”, Science 236: 271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, B., 1984, “Cancer and the Problems of Risk Assessment”, EPRI Journal, 9: 26.Google Scholar
  3. Bentkover, J. D., Covello, V. T., and Mumpower, J., eds., 1986, Benefits Assessment, D. Reidel, Boston.Google Scholar
  4. Blalock, H. M., 1972, Social Statistics, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Daneke, G. A., 1982, “The Future of Environmental Protection: Reflections on the Difference Between Planning and Regulating”, Public Administration Review, 42: 227.Google Scholar
  6. Douglas, J., 1985, “Measuring and Managing Environmental Risk”, EPRI Journal, 10: 7.Google Scholar
  7. Epstein, S. S. and Swartz, J. B., 1981, “Fallacies of Lifestyle Cancer Theories,” Nature, 289: 127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hoos, I. R., 1983, Systems Analysis in Public Policy: A Critique, 2nd ed., University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  9. Lave, L. B., 1987, “Health and Safety Risk Analyses: Information for Better Decisions”, Science, 236: 291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Research Council, 1983, Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process, National Academy Press, Washington.Google Scholar
  11. Peto, R., 1980, “Distorting the Epidemiology of Cancer: The Need for a More Balanced Overview,” Nature, 284: 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Regens, J. L., Dietz, T. M., and Rycroft, R. W., 1983, “Risk Assessment in the Policy-Making Process: Environmental Health and Safety Protection”, Public Administration Review, 43: 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rhodes, S. E., ed., 1980, Valuing Life: Public Policy Dilemmas, Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  14. Rosenbaum, W. A., 1985, Environmental Politics and Policy, Congressional Quarterly, Washington.Google Scholar
  15. Ruckelshaus, W. D., 1985, “Risk, Science, and Democracy”, Issues in Science and Technology 1: 19.Google Scholar
  16. Ruckelshaus, W. D., 1983, “Science, Risk and Public Policy”, Science, 221: 1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Russell, M. and Gruber, M., 1987, “Risk Assessment in Environmental Policy-Making”, Science 236: 286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rycroft, R. W., Regens, J. L., and Dietz, T., forthcoming, “Incorporating Risk Assessment and Benefit-Cost Analysis in Environmental Management”, Risk Analysis.Google Scholar
  19. Rycroft, R. W., Regens, J. L., and Dietz, T., 1987, “Acquiring and Utilizing Scientific and Technical Information to Identify Environmental Risks”, Science, Technology, and Human Values, 12: 125.Google Scholar
  20. Schmandt, J., 1984, “Regulation and Science”, Science, Technology and Human Values, 9: 23.Google Scholar
  21. Swartzman, D., Liroff, R. A. and Croke, K. G., eds., 1982, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Regulations, Conservation Foundation, Washington.Google Scholar
  22. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987, Cadmium: Conclusion of Special Review of Intent to Cancel Registrations of Pesticide Products Containing Cadmium OPP-30000/20D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.Google Scholar
  23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1986, Alachlor Special Review Technical Support Document, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.Google Scholar
  24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1985, Captan Special Review Position Document 2/3, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.Google Scholar
  25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1984, Risk Assessment and Management: Framework for Decision Making, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.Google Scholar
  26. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983, Guidelines for Performing Regulatory Impact Analysis, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.Google Scholar
  27. Violette, D. M. and Chestnut, L. G., 1983, Valuing Reductions in Risks: A Review of the Empirical Estimates, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington.Google Scholar
  28. Wynder, E. L. and Gori, G. B., 1977, “Contribution of the Environment to Cancer Incidence: An Epidemiologic Exercise,” Journal of the National Cancer Insititute 58: 825.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. L. Regens
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations