Think tanks wrap-up

WASHINGTON, March 18 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the first of three wrap-ups for March 18.

The National Center for Public Policy Research

(NCPPR is a communications and research foundation dedicated to providing free market solutions to today's public policy problems, based on the principles of a free market, individual liberty and personal responsibility. NCPPR was founded to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to late-breaking issues, based on thorough research.)

CHICAGO -- Ten second response -- Fast Facts on the Environment: Hans Blix Worries ... About Global Warming

By Amy Ridenour

-- Background: In an interview with MTV dated March 13, U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said: "On big issues like war in Iraq, but in many other issues they simply must be multilateral. There's no other way around. You have the instances like the global warming convention, the Kyoto protocol, when the U.S. went its own way. I regret it. To me the question of the environment is more ominous than that of peace and war. We will have regional conflicts and use of force, but world conflicts I do not believe will happen any longer. But the environment, that is a creeping danger. I'm more worried about global warming than I am of any major military conflict."

-- Ten Second Response: It is not comforting to know that the man in charge of finding weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is actually spending his time talking to MTV.

-- Thirty Second Response: The United Nations' global warming predictions have been as heavily politicized as they are publicized. The Kyoto Treaty would harm the U.S. economy far more than the European Union's. Perhaps that's really why France and Germany like it.

-- Discussion: Jacques Chirac and Gerhard Schroeder know perfectly well that continuing arms inspections of Saddam Hussein's Iraq will not result in Saddam's disarmament. They pretend otherwise out of self-interest. Given this fact, it is prudent for Americans to take a second look at any policy these governments are urging upon us.

Two relevant facts stand out about the Kyoto global warming treaty: 1) if the U.S. were to ratify it, it would be easier for France and Germany to compete economically with the United States; 2) even if the global warming treaty is proven accurate, it is universally acknowledged that the Kyoto Treaty would have little impact on any global warming.

So why does Hans Blix worry about the Kyoto Treaty when he's supposed to be containing Saddam Hussein? Perhaps in his heart of hearts, the country he's really trying to contain is the United States.

(Amy Ridenour is the president of the National Center for Public Policy Research.)

The Brookings Institution

WASHINGTON -- A view from the Arab world: a survey in five countries

By Shibley Telhami

Under the sponsorship of the Sadat Chair for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, Shibley Telhami prepared a public opinion survey for Zogby International, which interviewed 2,620 men and women in Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Jordan. The survey was conducted between Feb.19 and March 11. It focuses on perceptions of the United States in specific political scenarios and on views of United States policy abroad. Previous polls done by Shibley Telhami and by Zogby International in the Middle East showed that neither United States policy nor the United States was viewed favorably.

Summary of Findings

-- On attitudes toward the United States

Very few people in the survey countries have a favorable opinion of the United States: Only four percent in Saudi Arabia, six percent in Morocco and Jordan, 13 percent in Egypt, and 32 percent in Lebanon.

Most people say that their attitudes toward the United States are based on American policies, not on American values.

-- On possible war with Iraq

Despite the U.S. claim that it intends to spread democratic values and ideals throughout the world, war with Iraq will bring less democracy in the view of 95 percent of Saudis, 66 percent of Moroccans, 60 percent of Egyptians, 58 percent of Jordanians, and 74 percent of Lebanese.

More than three-fourths of Egyptians, Lebanese, and an overwhelming majority (90 percent) of Moroccans think that war with Iraq will bring less peace in the Middle East. More than half of Jordanians (60 percent) think that war with Iraq will bring less peace in the Middle East.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute

(CEI is a conservative, free-market think tank that supports principles of free enterprise and limited government, opposes government regulation, and actively engages in public policy debate.)

WASHINGTON -- CEI EnviroWire: So-called safety commission places consumers at risk

By Angela Logomasini

If you are considering a new deck, act fast. Federal regulators are poised to ban the most popular and affordable decking material -- wood treated with the preservative chromated copper arsenate, or CCA. Junk science has indicted CCA, despite the fact that consumers and builders have safely used CCA-treated wood for decades because it resists rotting and pests.

Today, the Consumer Product Safety Commission meets to consider a petition calling on the agency to ban playground equipment made with CCA-treated wood. The Commission will base its decision on a report it released in February, which claims that CCA-treated wood isn't safe for children because it contains trace levels of arsenic. Despite media hype, there isn't any evidence that it makes children sick. The CPSC claims that exposure in childhood might increase lifetime cancer risks for lung or bladder cancer, which occur late in life.

Nonetheless, it is more likely that risks are negligible. CPSC based its conclusions on two National Research Council reports from 1999 and 2001, on which the Environmental Protection Agency EPA based a drinking water rule. These studies assessed risks based on studies of Taiwanese populations exposed for decades to relatively high levels of arsenic in drinking water. CPSC assumed that if long-term exposures increase risk, then short-term ones do the same.

CPSC assumed that exposure to arsenic for a few years in childhood is equivalent to the same total exposure evenly distributed over a lifetime. The 2001 NRC report, however, concluded that cancer risk increases disproportionately with years of exposure, suggesting that the CPSC assumption overstates risks.

There are also serious limitations of using the Taiwanese data. The researchers attempted to determine at what level arsenic poses a risk based on arsenic levels in drinking water wells. Villages included several wells, with a wide range of arsenic levels. Researchers did not know who drank from which wells so they used median arsenic levels for each village. Hence, a village may have had excess cancers from one well that contained high levels of arsenic, but researchers assumed that the cancers resulted from exposures at a lower median level.

Rather than consider how these data limitations exaggerate both EPA and the NRC risk estimates, CPSC moved in the opposite direction. It assumed that arsenic is 6 to 56 times more potent than the EPA's already conservative risk estimates. Do CPSC assumptions hold up in peer review? We don't know because the CPSC refuses to release the peer review as well as data it used in the study.

CPSC's sloppy research will likely produce adverse repercussions. It might encourage local governments, daycare centers, and others to tear out playground equipment. Perhaps wealthy communities will be able to rebuild, but what about poorer communities? Will kids in poor, inner-city neighborhoods be better off without safe play areas?

CPSC junk science may also advance bans on residential uses of CCA. Last year EPA announced -- but has yet to finalize -- plans to ban certain residential uses, while asserting that it has not found any "unreasonable risk to the public or the environment." EPA is also considering whether to list CCA-treated wood as a hazardous waste, which could greatly increase disposal costs.

A ban will cost consumers an estimated 20 to 30 percent for wood treated with alternatives preservatives -- yet costs may be much higher than this estimate. In comments to EPA, one wood processor noted that fence posts made with alternative products cost more than double CCA-treated posts. These new posts are only expected to last 10 years while CCA-treated posts last 30.

In addition, about 350 wood processors would have to retool their shops at a very high price (up to $200,000 each) to make wood with alternative preservatives. Any small business that uses the wood will face steeper repair and replacement costs for various structures as well as increased disposal costs.

People could switch to plastic lumber or hard woods like cedar or redwood. Yet these options are cost-prohibitive for many families and communities, as they can double costs. In addition, regulators might want to consider whether they want federal policy to encourage harvesting of redwood forests.

As prices escalate, many people may keep decks longer -- even when decks deteriorate into safety hazards. New decks constructed with alternatives may also pose safety hazardous because alternative preservatives are highly corrosive to screws and nails.

As a result, consumers that mistakenly fail to use stainless steel screws and nails may see their new decks eventually collapse. CPSC didn't consider these potential safety perils. In fact, it didn't even consider whether the alternatives were more or less dangerous than CCA.

CPSC is supposed to be our consumer advocate. But if CPSC officials are serious about uncovering threats to consumer safety and choice, maybe it's time they looked in the mirror.

(Angela Logomasini is director of risk and environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)

WASHINGTON -- Pediatric drug testing bill could prove unhealthy

By CEI Staff

A controversial pediatric drug-testing bill was unveiled at a Senate news conference on Tuesday, but according to a public interest group the bill could actually endanger public health by delaying the introduction of new drugs. The Competitive Enterprise Institute was one of three groups that succeeded last fall in getting a similar Food and Drug Administration regulation overturned in court. The court ruling has now become the impetus for this legislative proposal.

Under the Pediatric Rule, issued by FDA in 1998, the agency could demand that drug manufacturers perform pediatric testing on adult drugs that are used "off-label" for children. Even though a drug may be labeled for use by adults only, it would have to be tested on children if there was a likelihood that pediatricians would use it.

The agency claimed it was acting to protect children, but CEI and the other plaintiffs -- Consumer Alert and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons -- argue such a testing mandate would lengthen the drug approval process, resulting in fewer new drugs overall.

"Having more data on drugs sounds wonderful, but there is a trade-off between having more information and having more drugs. And many doctors, if they have to choose, would choose to have more drugs," said Sam Kazman, CEI's general counsel and an expert on FDA policy issues. "The Pediatric Rule constituted a drastic change in the drug approval process, and it should not be enacted into law. The end result could be a far riskier and costly approval process, and ultimately, fewer drugs. No one would benefit from that."