Economic implications of hormesis.

The implications of hormesis for decision making about control of environmental exposures are examined. From an economic perspective, environmental exposures should be controlled to a level that optimizes health effects and minimizes control costs. The possibility that substances are, or may be, hormetic poses no fundamental challenge for economic analysis. In contrast with the linear no-threshold model, optimal control may be either less or more stringent under the hormetic model, depending on the incremental control cost. When exposure levels or exposure-response functions differ across individuals or are uncertain, the optimal population-level control of exposure must balance possible benefits and harms to individuals against control costs. Economic-incentive-based regulatory instruments, such as tradable permits, are likely to offer less improvement relative to command-and-control regulations under a hormetic model than under a linear no-threshold model.

Economic implications of hormesis in policy making.

Economists face no fundamental problem in calculating the optimal exposure of a hormetic substance and this could potentially be set as a regulatory level. This level would be where the marginal cost of control is equal to the slope of the exposure-response function. There are a number of reasons, however, to expect public resistance to assuming hormesis. These reasons include the fact that hormesis implies a lower level or risk for any given exposure; it might be viewed as weakening regulatory standards; and it could justify low emissions if marginal costs are low. If all we care about are the negative effects measured by a single health endpoint, then the RfD (the level of exposure below which there is no appreciable risk) may be appropriate. Hormesis maintains the single endpoint, but accepts beneficial as well as deleterious effects. If we are going to accept beneficial effects then we should consider all health endpoints and all costs and benefits. This is simply benefit-cost analysis with a hormetic exposure-response curve. Because of legal constraints, this type of analysis may be of little use in setting tolerance levels, but may be important if the EPA chooses to adopt more voluntary policy measures.

The cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in Japan. Do chemical regulations cost too much?

This paper compares the cost-effectiveness of life-saving interventions in Japan, based on information collected from the health, safety and environmental literature. More than 50 life-saving interventions are analyzed. Cost-effectiveness is defined as the cost per life-year saved or as the cost per quality-adjusted life-year saved. Finding a large cost-effectiveness disparity between chemical controls and health care intervention, we raise the question of whether chemical regulations cost society too much. We point out the limitations of this study and propose a way to improve the incorporation of morbidity effects in cost-effectiveness analysis.