This was an easy read.
We've introduced ourself to the concept of
expected value and expected losses in risk analysis.
And then saw how a court applied a risk based
concept in the federal pesticide statute in Dow Chemical versus Plum.
The takeaway from this case
is that all EPA had to do to regulate a pesticide in this instance, was
to show that it was merely rational, or
reasonable, to conclude that there was some risks.
Whose cost to society weren't outweighed
by the benefits of an emergency suspension.
And that was enough for the court.
All the court required was rationality, not perfection in the science.
And the science need only to show
a risk, not a certainty, of harm.