Citation

Regens JL, Dietz TM, Rycroft RW. Public Adm. Rev. 1983; 43(2): 137-145.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1983, American Society for Public Administration, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

10259246

Abstract

This article examines the extent to which differences exist in the relative degree of discretion permitted by the statutory mandates under which health risk assessments are conducted as a basis for regulatory action. Attention is focused on the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, because they are the lead federal regulatory agencies on most environmental health matters. The statutes are found to define risk, consider effects, identify target populations, and use benefit-cost analysis in a flexible way. But the burden of proof of risk typically is assigned in a more direct and stringent fashion. Overall, however, agencies are found to have substantial discretion in the manner in which risk assessments are incorporated into the policy process. A number of examples of efforts to reduce this flexibility are outlined and their implications for the future of the analysis of risks are delineated.

Language: en