Advocacy journalists sitr up unwarranted hysteria over a weed-killer made to save farmers over $2 billion.

The impact of air quality improvements on individuals' well-being has been the subject of inquiry by many scholars over the past several decades.

This report emphasizes one way that regulations following from the CAA directly influences individuals‟ behavior: through the Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) programs.

Both my own research and reading in the literature suggests that EPA has serious problems in the way it employs scientific information when it assesses both the potential benefits, and potential costs of existing and proposed public policies.

The controversy over the Clean Air Act is worth understanding because it reveals a pivotal development that EPA and the environmental groups would prefer to conceal: the 40-year-old act is no longer a sensible way to regulate large-volume conventional air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter.

As scientists confront the challenge of how to regulate plasticizers—chemicals that make plastics soft, transparent and durable—the European Union is moving towards a model that US regulators should emulate.

If we don't rely on science to guide us, we might make the day for Whole Foods Market devotees, but it would have a devastating effect on the nutritionally poor and the world food supply.

After an extensive review of some 5000 studies, the German toxicologists reaffirmed the scientific consensus that BPA is safe when used even by the most vulnerable populations—young children and pregnant women.

Finding plasticizers in dust is neither surprising nor necessarily a cause for alarm. Evidence that phthalates cause harm in humans is scientifically thin, and campaigners never directly address that hypothesis.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s reasons for not using its usual approach to regulating greenhouse gases unwittingly shows that it is obsolete for controlling conventional pollutants. Congress should update the Clean Air Act.