Chemical regulation affects our health and well-being in many ways. A key area involves promoting freedom to develop and employ valuable chemicals that are used for a variety of life enhancing functions, such as for pharmaceuticals and products to safely grow, store, and transport food our food supply.

Unfortunately, policymakers and others often ignore the value these product produce and vastly overestimate the risks, leading to onerous regulations that impede innovation and deprive consumers of valuable products. In some cases, the impacts of such policies can prove seriously detrimental to human well being and public health.

Don’t we have to manage the real risks posed by chemicals?

Absolutely. Like all risks, chemical risks need to be managed. CEI’s research shows that market institutions such as private property and a rule of law that holds individuals accountable are far more effective tools for managing risks. Rather than attempting to manage all economic activity and thereby impede freedom to innovate, market institutions provide incentives for individuals to bring products to the market that add value to society.

Aren’t chemicals the cause of increased cancer rates?

In recent decades many have claimed that cancer is rising because of increased use of man-made chemicals. But if chemicals were a source of health problems, one might expect that as chemical use has increased around the world, there would be some measurable adverse impact on life expectancy, cancer rates, or other illnesses. Yet in developed nations, where chemical use has greatly increased, people are living longer, healthier lives. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the average worldwide human life span has increased from 45 years in 1950 to about 66 in 2000 and will most likely continue to increase to 77 years by 2050.

Moreover, cancer trends are anything but alarming. Sir Richard Doll and Richard Peto note in their landmark study on cancer that rates have remained nearly constant in the United States during the 20th century except for cancer rate increases caused by smoking. Improvements in medical technology, more accurate identification and reporting of cancer cases, and, most importantly, increasing life expectancies which result in more people reaching the old ages at which cancer is more likely to occur only make it appear as if rates increased. Scientists Bruce Ames and Lois Swirsky Gold report that overall cancer rates, excluding lung cancer, have declined 16 percent since 1950, and that the rise in cancer among the elderly is best explained by improved screening.

Researchers at the National Cancer Institute, in its annual report on cancer, has also reported that rates for overall cancer are down in recent years, and rates for almost all specific cancers also are falling; even lung cancer is falling as a result of reduced smoking rates over the last 25 years. They do not mention environmental exposures in the discussion of cancer trends.

Isn’t it better to regulate chemicals, just to be on the safe side?

Many people have used the faulty idea that we should apply what they call the precautionary principle before allowing new technologies—especially chemicals—on the market. Unfortunately, overregulation can be more dangerous than allowing innovation. The problem with the way policymakers apply the “precautionary principle,” without regard to the benefits of allowing innovation, and they demand an impossible level of “safety.” For example, a Greenpeace activist has even called for the elimination of chlorine. Science magazine quotes him as noting: “There are no known uses for chlorine which we regard as safe.” Yet chlorine is necessary to ensure safe drinking water for billions of people and without it, millions could die.

Like anything, chemicals may create new risks, but risks can be managed so that we can reap the critical benefits of these products. As Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Fred Smith notes, “Experience demonstrates that the risks of innovation, while real, are vastly less than risks of stagnation.” Indeed, he asks, what would the world be like if medical researchers had never introduced penicillin because they could not prove it was 100 percent safe?