Policies must be based on facts

Aug 21 2007 by Brian Rooney, Western Mail

THE Assembly Government has very sensibly relaxed the rules for on-site burial of fallen stock during the present foot-and-mouth outbreak. But although the decision was taken for reasons of practicality it is possible the restrictions were never necessary in the first place.

Introduced during the BSE-induced climate of anxiety, they were a reaction to fears the disease might contaminate groundwater and thence public supplies, putting public health at risk.

This was always questionable, and seems especially so now when fears of an epidemic caused by the disease being transmitted in food (a much more plausible route) do not seem to have been realised.

It is wasteful to keep regulations in force when the problem they address no longer exists. It makes matters worse when the alleged problem was based on uncertain science and may never have existed at all.

Smoking in public places was banned because it was claimed the health of non-smokers could be damaged by smoke from other peoples’ cigarettes.

It will surprise most people to discover there is no sound scientific evidence for this. There is plenty of opinion, but no more.

The most comprehensive study of the subject, organised by the American Cancer Society, reviewed the health over a 40-year period of 35,000 couples, one of whom was a smoker and the other a non-smoker. It found no significant risk to the non-smoker. But this didn’t stop the campaigners, and the legislators fell in line

Global warming promises to be another example. The theory is that global temperature is determined by atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, and measures are being devised to reduce emissions of the gas.

But the theory is by no means proven. Although carbon dioxide levels are increasing, global average temperatures actually peaked around 1998 and are now falling slightly.

Moreover, a thousand years ago temperatures were higher than today, although carbon dioxide levels were lower. Climate policies concentrating on carbon dioxide could be misdirected.

Policy-makers must base decisions on facts, not hype, if we are not to suffer more misdirected regulations.