Document NEnNnnMqkMM2g3pkxqo5ZkyOR

J38' brffwk '4^, NEW HAVW KEGtSTBt, SUNDAY. DECEMBER 13. 19B1 WD /j >4^ THE REGULATION ISSUE: Policies on carcinogens scored By LISA K. NELSON Staff Reporter If regulation of carcinogens is to be come a reality, don't count on the medical profession, government or the petrochemi cal industries to help the situation along, aid SgjgudEjgjein at the annual Kaiser Lecture at Yale's Harkness Hall last week. The Politics of Cancer" is Epstein's 1978 book about how government, the scientific and medical professions and the chemical industry deal with the preven tion of cancer. He feels their efforts aren't very good. Tt is clear that we are dealing with a major killing disease," Epstein said, "and the actual causes have crystallized into two schools of thought. The first is the lifestyle school of thought, which states it's your own fault if you get cancer, because you either drink or smoke too much or chose the wrong parents." The second is the occupational and industrial school of thought. This says that cancer is caused by overwhelming expo sure to carcinogens. The medical community has taken the lifestyle school as their reason for cancer. They believe that it's your own fault and that there hasn't been a significant in crease in the cancer rate," Epstein said. They feel that if you do get cancer it's due to smoking, and that is why there is federal regulations, which they usual! no need to control carcinogens. feel is too expensive. What they don't loo There is evidence that smoking is a cause of lung cancer. But it also shows up at is the long-range benefits of the regul; tions, Epstein said. more in major chemical-industrial areas,", "Benefits would include improver he said, `The rate is increasing among industrial efficency by recycling anc non-smokers, too, because the carcinogens recovering the chemicals instead of put are getting into the air. ting them in the air," Epstein said. "The.' "In 1978, the industries were asking the Carter administration, `Do we really need to regulate?' The government did ignore the delayed benefits of not damag ing the ecosystems and not promoting the disease any further." some studies that showed if certain car cinogens (five or six were tested) were continued to be emitted, that 38 percent of cancer in the coming decades would be The Reagan administration has a dif ferent policy toward regulations than th( Carter administration, Epstein said. caused by the carcinogens," Epstein said. There is,an overwhelming paradox in returning the power to the states and "Industry's problem is its unwilling getting government off their backs," he ness to recognize the existence of cancer- said. There has been an attack on free causing carcinogens,'' he said. "Industry dom of information and the fundamental attributes risk to the lifestyle school." rights of the citizens. Some of the major companies have been suppressing, manipulating and de stroying information about their hazard ous chemicals, Epstein claimed. The record speaks for itself," be said, These constraints in their data base are quasi-criminal acts. But the record of manipulation is not a simple matter to explain. It is very complicated." The industry's concern is with the costbenefit analysis that is conducted before any regulations are passed. Companies look at the cost of complying with the "Carter's labor law said that workers should be told what the nature of the chemicals that they were working with was," Epstein said. "In 1981, Reagan's administration put up a notice inviting the public to give comments on the law. The chemical industry was so outraged at the request that they lobbied successfully for the notice to be withdrawn." The public must realize that its con cern about regulation must be transform ed into a political movement The only way to get through to government is through politics, Epstein concluded. URL-P 0199 CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT PRODUCED PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER