1. Genetically modified foods arouse a lot of public concerns, and EPA and /or the FDA is under particular pressure to manage the use of genetic technologies as they are applied to the food supply. The FDA recently decided that the genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon is as safe to eat as any non-genetically engineered (GE) Atlantic salmon, and also as nutritious. Similarly, the EPA has approved the use of a number of pesticidal products developed by genetically modifying food crops (e.g., introduction of Bt toxin, or Roundup-resistant strains). Evaluate either the FDA or EPA’s current ability to scientifically identify whether such products in the food supply may pose a hazard to human health or the ecosystem. What do we know about their potential human health effects, and how easy is it to apply our conventional hazard identification paradigm to these products?
2. Unconventional natural gas development (UNGD) activities have proliferated across the US and the globe in response to previous increases in oil prices and improvements in technologies to mine lucrative energy sources. While touted as cleaner that some conventional energy sources such as coal, there has been mounting concern about the health and climate impacts of UNGD activities. What is the evidence in support and against these concerns?
3. Several years after the Bush administration announced in October 2001 that it would adopt a maximum contaminant standard of 10 parts of arsenic per billion parts water, controversy remains over whether this level is truly protective of public health. What are the major scientific issues raised by the EPA’s effort to derive an ingestion cancer potency for arsenic and to use that to establish a drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level? Is the current standard protective enough of public health?
4. A Centers for Disease Control biomonitoring study of the US population reports that mercury levels in women and children are higher than previously thought, and a potential public health concern. EPA completed a Report to Congress on mercury emissions from power plants, and there has been considerable political debate about whether a special round of controls is needed to reduce mercury loading into the environment. EPA recently promulgated new rules for mercury emissions from coal fired power plants. Discuss where is the mercury we are observing in human populations comes from, how humans are exposed and whether controlling emissions from power plants would have a significant effect on human body burdens. Can exposure assessment help us prioritize policy actions that could reduce mercury body burdens?
5. The Department of Health and Human Services recently recommended that fluoride levels in drinking water be reduced to no more than 0.7 parts per million or 0.7 milligrams per liter. Water utilities add fluoride to the drinking water of about 75% of Americans to reduce the incidence of dental cavities. Some researchers believe that there needs to be new research to assess whether in fact water fluoridation is still necessary, given its ubiquitous use in toothpastes, rinses, etc and the fact that cavity levels have declined that the same rate in countries with and without fluoridation. Discuss the merits of this argument and why we might or might not want to consider decreasing or eliminating drinking water fluoridation altogether. What are the potential health concerns underlying this debate? [See http://www.newsweek.com/us-government-recommends-lower-level-fluoride-water-325760]
6. Food and Drug Administration scientists recently determined that low-level exposure to the common plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) is safe. The media, the chemical industry, and FDA officials touted this as evidence that long-standing concerns about the health effects of BPA were unfounded. However, environmental advocates and some leading academic scientists who had been working with the FDA on a related project related to BpA believe that the Agency’s study is deeply flawed. Identify the major stakeholder groups arguing over the safety of BPA, and address the outstanding scientific issues still under debate.
