scientific measurement are not precise and can only gauge tendencies or proclivities.
Consequently, building a body of scientific evidence is a long process and never produces
complete uniformity. Because of the potential for variations in scientific research findings,
agencies have adopted a process of looking at the ‘preponderance of evidence.” A conclusion can
be drawn even if it is not supported by every investigation, if a preponderance of published
scientific studies continuously produce comparable outcomes that indicate the same conclusion.
This has become the generally accepted way to use scientific evidence to determine if a product
or practice produced considerable danger to people or the environment. If enough evidence exists
than an agency could justify taking regulatory action.
The Nature of Environmental Health Regulations
This method of using the preponderance of evidence has been the accepted justification
for the creation of environmental health regulations. Environmental health policy involves
protecting the public from exposures to potentially harmful substances. One of the more
significant aspects of this type of policy is the establishment of acceptable exposure standards for
toxic emissions from consumer goods, such as pesticides, building materials, cleaners, and other
petrochemical-based products. Determining the levels of exposure to toxic substances that are
considered safe for humans, however, is not a simple task. It typically involves an elaborate
process that integrates scientific evidence with economic factors and political deliberations.
Regulatory policy by it’s very nature force’s someone to do something that they would
not other wise do (Dye 1998). Laws and regulations intended to protect people from toxic
substances normally require manufacturers to alter their practices in order to reduce toxic
Convention