| Popis: |
Since the early 1970s with the formation of environmental regulatory agencies in many European states, there has been a lively debate about how best to regulate chemicals, including metals, food additives and preservatives, as well as certain foods themselves.1 Should regulations be based on a hazard classification (that is the potential for a substance, activity or process to cause harm or adverse effect) or a risk (a combination of the likelihood and the severity of a substance, activity or process to cause harm) assessment?2 In other words, should regulators ban substances that have an intrinsic ability to cause harm, or should they examine whether there is a real probability that these substances will actually cause harm, in part based on exposure?3 To be clear, hazard classifications and risk assessment are not mutually exclusive. In order to assess risks, it is necessary to first understand the hazard, so advocates of risk-based regulation are dependent on hazard classification taking place. The key component of the debate centres around whether regulatory decision-making can/should be based on hazard classification alone, eschewing risk assessment. From an economics perspective, decision making on the basis of just hazard classification usually ignores impact assessment, which is a distinct factor and in so doing often contributes to poor regulatory policy-making.4 |
