Precautionary principle punishes pandemic patients

This article was originally published in the Center Square on July 9, 2020.

Governments across the world have taken extraordinary measures to try and keep their citizens safe during the coronavirus crisis. Needless rules are being relaxed and regulatory bodies are keeping restrictions on masks and medical equipment to a minimum. Many of these efforts are hitting a brick wall, however, thanks to a pervasive, outdated misapplication of the regulatory philosophy known as the “precautionary principle.”

Under this failed, albeit persistent, approach to rulemaking, bureaucrats often resort to a worst-case theoretical scenario and sketchy science unsupported by any actual evidence.

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance and 13 other free-market organizations from around the world recently released a Statement of Principles urging governments to pursue evidence-based policy rather than fearmongering and foot-dragging. For the sake of billions of patients and citizens locked down, governments across the globe must lead with a light regulatory hand.

In part, the Statement of Principles reads, “Taxpayers and consumers deserve robust policy and scientific evaluation processes that take into account actual real-world evidence before products are banned or tightly regulated.” Governments continue to neglect real-world evidence on product and material safety, preferring idle speculation over rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

Unfortunately, this sort of precautionary, evidence-free thinking has invaded the U.S., where states are using faulty risk thresholds to ban sterilizing gases such as Ethylene Oxide (EtO). This gas has played a critical role in keeping a wide array of medical devices clean, and continued widespread use is key to keeping the coronavirus at bay. But thanks to faulty reporting by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), state regulators are deeming EtO to be dangerous and shutting down production accordingly. EtO production plants in Illinois and Michigan, for instance, had to cease operations last year because of pressure from state officials informed by unrealistic EPA risk thresholds.

IRIS, which is tasked with keeping tabs on the risks of various chemicals, found in 2016 that EtO poses significant harms to human health at the infinitesimally low level of 100 parts per quadrillion, or approximately 19,000 times lower than the amount of EtO found in the human body. By IRIS and the EPA’s strange logic, humans are posing an unacceptable risk to themselves by being alive and producing EtO internally. And this isn’t IRIS’ first rodeo in using junk science to push for fearmongering and bans. Competitive Enterprise Institute senior fellow Angela Logomasini points out, “In 2011, a National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report on IRIS’ draft assessment on formaldehyde sharply rebuked IRIS’ science. It criticized the program for ‘recurring methodologic problems,’ including repeated failures to provide ‘clarity and transparency of the methods.’”

Continued restrictions on life-saving materials and gases will make it far more difficult for hospitals to treat coronavirus patients. Yet, regulators in the U.S. and around the world continue to rely on the precautionary principle, hampering the fight against COVID-19.

The costs of relying on junk science and worst-case scenarios will only increase as innovators around the world try to find a cure to the coronavirus. Regulatory foot-dragging will cost millions of lives and untold billions of dollars in lost economic activity. Bureaucrats must be forward thinking and base their conclusions on a careful consideration of real-world evidence and sound suppositions. In the Statement of Principles, TPA and other signatories resolve to “educate lawmakers and citizens on the importance of keeping bureaucrats from micromanaging innovative sectors of the economy.”

It’s time for regulators to rely on real-world evidence and empower health care providers to lead the charge against the coronavirus. Millions of lives depend on the right regulatory approach and philosophy.