Quantative estimates of human risk are now used for regulation and management of many technological, environmental, and occupational health risks. Ten or more years ago, this was not the case; except for activities for which reliable data were directly available (such as transportation risk) and for a few other areas (such as ionizing radiation), risk management decisions were made without quantitative risk estimates, although analytical methods that stopped well short of estimating risk were used.

DR. ELIZABETH L. ANDERSON: Dr. Whipple has emphasized that risk assessment is on the rise because of policy needs, and I think this is certainly true. Two other points come to mind, and I think they are worth mentioning. First, as the number of our laws increased, scientists searched for their role in the public policy arena. Over time, scientists have become more cautious about making decisions to define a safe level of exposure in the face of scientific uncertainty. Policy makers and lawyers often press science for the answer to what is safe.

Life is a risky business. In this complex technological society, we simply cannot go about our daily activities without exposing ourselves and others to risks to our health and to our shared environment. Risks lurk in our diets, in our jobs, and in our recreational activities. Fortunately, we can reduce risks by amending our conduct and by implementing risk-reduction technologies. These efforts, however, claim resources, in both time and money. Individually and collectively, we face hard choices about how much risk is acceptable and how much risk should be avoided.

DR. JOEL HIRSCHHORN: First, I would like to support the view that there is, in fact, a lack of public trust in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This lack of trust extends to both risk assessment and risk management.

My topic is a large one, and I cannot hope to cover it in detail. Instead, I shall offer a sketch of an idealized environmental risk management system and ask how the courts have contributed or might contribute to its realization. I shall focus on three specific contexts in which courts participate in environmental risk management: review of administrative action, particularly of federal regulatory action (or inaction); actions in the first instance for injunctive relief against claimed environmental hazards; and actions for compensatory damages.

HENRY NICKEL: The objective of Professor Stewart's idealized risk management system is simply to do more good than harm. That is not a very radical notion; unfortunately, our statutes do not currently operate to ensure this result in every case.

To determine whether a particular course of action will produce more good than harm, agencies must look at the economic expenditures involved and at the entire spectrum of risks that will be created by a decision to proceed or not to proceed in a particular manner.

GEORGE FREEMAN: This morning, it was noted that longevity has improved substantially over the past decade. As a whole, prople in this country are much better off than they were a century ago.

This fact tells us that the net effect of our increasingly complex industrial society has been more beneficial than detrimental. If we were to examine the roles of the private and public sector in bringing about this effect, I think we would see that the private sector has contributed more to the net result than has the government.

I think we should start by reminding ourselves why we are at a meeting of this sort. It is not because we are radicals trying to attack the capitalist system with its dangerous chemical companies, nor it it because we are trying to provide the chemical companies with ammunition to defend themselves against the radicals. We are here because we want to play our part in reducing the risk to life, in improving the expectation of life, and, more importantly, in improving the quality of life by making sure that the environment is safe.

Editors' Summary: In July 1985, the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Environmental Law and the ABA's Sections on Natural Resources Law and Corporation, Banking, and Business Law sponsored a panel presentation on international environmental issues. The participants address pressing global environmental problems facing the world over the next several decades, analyze the relationship between environmental protection and economic development, and examine the role of lawyers in resolving these issues.

Editors' Summary: In our form of government, an important aspect of all federal environmental laws is the tension between the need for national uniformity in certain areas of environmental protection and the realization that state and local governments are closer to the problem and may have additional resources, financial and otherwise, to did in solving the problem.