Zero-risk laws

In contrast, the Food Additive Amendments of 1958 to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act presented a different type of law, a "zero-risk" law. Under the thrust of the zero-risk law, it said "if a food additive is a carcinogen, we cannot permit any exposure since we cannot live with any such risk." Risk is the evaluation of severity of toxicity or hazardous properties... 

Zero-risk laws are based on the goal that perfect safety is required and that nothing should be weighed in some cost-benefit or risk-benefit analysis. 

The absolute nature of a zero-risk law is inconsistent with the practice of epidemiology and risk assessment since we can now easily detect the presence of many chemicals (in food, water, or air) at levels far below which any risk of harm can be measured. In the extreme, this philosophy would simply prohibit many activities in labs and in industry. For example, since there is always a slight chance of falling off a ladder, a zero-based OSHA law about ladders would prohibit their use. Similarly, since... 

Zero-risk laws are uncommon. A good historical example is the Delaney Clause (1958) of the Federal Food, Dmg and Cosmetic Act (1938), which states that the FDA shall not approve for use in food any chemical additive found to induce cancer in man, or, after tests, found to induce cancer in animals. This is a very extreme condition since it completely bans the use of any (natural or synthetic) chemical that is believed to cause cancer at any dose in any species. In 1988 the Environmental Protection Agency changed its policy in interpreting the Delaney Clause to include the criterion oi"de minimus, which refers to a risk level too small to be concerned with . That is, minimal or negligible risks are acceptable. 

Although marketed medical products are required by federal law to be safe for their intended use, safety does not mean zero risk. A safe product is one that has acceptable risks, given the magnitude of benefit expected in a specific population and within the context of alternatives available. 

Thus, if the demand for zero risk must be rejected as a nonsensical, absolute demand in view of technicabpractical conditions prevailing in this world, while the basic claim of the citizen to protection from dangers remains, the measure of protection, and the imposed risk can be determined only in concrete instances according to the principle of the relationship between means and ends. The limitations of our abilities only permit that we transform into reality some of that which is feasible in view of outside, factual reality in this case the moral law commands selection of the best possible alternative. Between equally good or, if the occasion arises, between only probably equally good means and ends there is free choice. What will determine our choice is morally a matter of indifference [9-26]. 

Technology-based laws recognize that the zero or reasonable risk cannot be attained due to the limits of some technology. The regulated level of exposure is based on the lowest feasible level that some technological solution can produce. 

---