Revising the National Ambient Air Quality Standards: The integration of science and policy

Under the Clean Air Act, Congress granted discretionary decision making authority to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This discretionary authority involves setting standards to protect the public's health with an "adequate margin of safety" based on current scientific knowledge. The Administrator of the EPA is usually not a scientist, and for the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter (PM), the Administrator faced the task of revising a standard when several scientific factors were ambiguous. These factors included: (1) no identifiable threshold below which health effects are not manifested, (2) no biological basis to explain the reported associations between particulate matter and adverse health effects, and (3) no consensus among the members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) as to what an appropriate PM indicator, averaging period, or value would be for the revised standard. ^ This project recommends and demonstrates a tool, integrated assessment (IA), to aid the Administrator in making a public health policy decision in the face of ambiguous scientific factors. IA is an interdisciplinary approach to decision making that has been used to deal with complex issues involving many uncertainties, particularly climate change analyses. Two IA approaches are presented; a rough set analysis by which the expertise of CASAC members can be better utilized, and a flag model for incorporating the views of stakeholders into the standard setting process. ^ The rough set analysis can describe minimal and maximal conditions about the current science pertaining to PM and health effects. Similarly, a flag model can evaluate agreement or lack of agreement by various stakeholder groups to the proposed standard in the PM review process. ^ The use of these IA tools will enable the Administrator to (1) complete the NAAQS review in a manner that is in closer compliance with the Clean Air Act, (2) expand the input from CASAC, (3) take into consideration the views of the stakeholders, and (4) retain discretionary decision making authority. ^

The relationship between calcium and fluoride intake, pregnancy and lactation and the risk of height loss in white women

This study was designed to investigate the effect of calcium and fluoride intake, and parity and lactation on the risk of spinal osteoporosis. Height loss was used as a surrogate measure for spinal fractures by taking advantage of documented changes in height found during the 25-year follow-up of the Charleston Heart Study cohort. Women who had lost 2-4" in height or who had no change in height during the follow-up period were defined as case and comparison subjects respectively. Calcium intake when the subjects were "about 25" and in the recent past, average intake of fluoride over 25 years, and parity and history of breastfeeding were ascertained by questionnaire from 54 case and 77 comparison subjects. Low calcium intake in the past decreased the risk of height loss (age-adjusted OR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.1-0.96) although several potentially important confounding variables could not be adjusted for. There was no association between risk of height loss and present calcium intake (OR = 0.8, 95%CI: 0.3-2.6 for low versus high intake) after adjustment for past calcium intake. High fluoride intake decreased the risk of height loss (adjusted OR = 0.4, 95%CI: 0.1-1.2). The effect of fluoride or calcium intake in the present was modified by the level of the other nutrient. Compared to a low intake of both calcium and fluoride, a high intake of one increased the risk of height loss (crude OR = 3.3 for high fluoride/low calcium, crude OR = 6.0 for high calcium/low fluoride) although a high intake of both was slightly protective (crude OR = 0.7). It is estimated that a "high" nutrient intake in this population was greater than 850mg/day for calcium and 2mg/day for fluoride. After adjustment for age, increasing parity decreased the risk of height loss in women who had never breastfed (OR = 0.2, 95%CI: 0.01-1.7 for 4 or more children). Women who had breastfed were also at lower risk of height loss than nulliparous women (OR = 0.3, 95%CI: 0.1-1.2 for 4 or more children) although at any level of parity, breastfeeding women had a greater risk of height loss than did non-breastfeeding women. ^