Risk, Science, and Politics: Regulating Toxic Substances in Canada and the United States

Simon Dalby is an assistant professor of geography at Carleton
University in Ottawa.

Regulatory controversy is perhaps inevitable when substances that are
related to cancer are in the public realm. This book uses a comparative
method based on seven case studies to assess the performance of agencies
in the differing political and institutional environments of Canada and
the United States. The case studies focused on dioxin, the pesticides
Alachlor and Alar, the sweetener Saccharin (which Canadians banned and
Americans didn’t), urea-formaldehyde foam insulation for buildings,
asbestos, and naturally occurring radon gas in houses. In each study,
the authors looked at the effectiveness of the regulatory approach in
terms of the stringency of the regulations, their timeliness, the
balance between risks and commercial benefits, opportunities for public
participation, and the use of science in the regulatory process.

The results of the regulatory process are decidedly mixed, with some
substances being more tightly restricted in Canada and some in the
United States. The American approach is more open to public scrutiny and
more often challenged in the courts, but the authors conclude that this
difference has not necessarily delayed action on formulating and
implementing regulations. They also conclude that similar science can be
interpreted in different manners in the regulatory process, depending on
the assumptions that are brought to bear in particular cases. While
Canadian processes tend to be more flexible, often dealing with
substances on a case-by-case basis, American procedures are more
formalized.

This well-written book makes no claims to be a systematic overview of
the whole matter of toxic-substance regulation. What it does, in a
fairly accessible manner, is show the complexities of the regulation
process and the political difficulties of dealing with technical matters
when the scientific evidence on which decisions are at least partly
based is not definitive. Insofar as it shows that these are not easy
questions to deal with in conventional regulatory frameworks, the book
offers considerable insight into the role of governments in
public-health issues.