![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Health issues
Q: Was it the externals that helped or pushed the change during your administration towards health issues?
MR. COSTLE: The externals certainly had a major influence, but it was in our interest, too. That was the political high ground, and EPA can't survive if it's not occupying the high ground.
Q: You said that you were constantly saying to the staff: "Don't look just at carcinogens; also look at other effects." Did you find that there was a momentum towards focusing on carcinogens?
MR. COSTLE: That's exactly right, and it continued for quite a time. It's only been in recent years that the agency has begun to truly realize that there may be stronger issues than carcinogenicity alone. I think the staff can be forgiven their preoccupation with it at that time, because it was really the issue where the public interest was focused, where political support was directed. Congress itself had seized on the issue, knowing that it was something concerning most Americans. So it was not surprising that the Agency's focus would tend in that direction.
It's a little like the story of the person coming across a man down on his hands and knees under a street lamp on a very black night. The person asks, "What are you doing?" "I'm looking for my wife's diamond ring." "Is this where she lost it?" "No, but it's where the light is, so this is where I'm looking."
Environmental health issues intersect with everything else we do. Fashioning a national policy on these issues is really in our interest, to assure us a sustainable future. Even accepting the vagueness of any definition of sustainability, it's a good, working, politically healthful formulation to address the needs of the present without compromising the future. If that's to happen, EPA needs a broader charter than it has now, and it has to have a broader base of institutional support.