In the case of a nonthreshold effect which can be assessed through quantitative risk assessment, such as a cancer effect, the Committee expects, based on its understanding of current EPA practice, that a tolerance will be considered to provide a reasonable certainty of no harm if any increase in lifetime risk, based on quantitative risk assessment using conservative assumptions, will be no greater than negligible. It is the Committees understanding that, under current EPA practice, . . . EPA interprets a negligible risk to be a one-in-a-million lifetime risk. The Committee expects the Administrator to continue to follow this interpretation.
Id. See Cross, supra note 48, at 116465. This quantitative level of protection of one in one million is precisely the risk that FDA had announced to be negligible or de minimis. See e.g., Hutt & Merrill, supra note 37, at 899904; Pub. Citizen v. Bowen, 833 F.2d 364, 365 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
[T]he Court finds that the Community institutions did not exceed the bounds of the discretion conferred on them by the Treaty when they took the view that the various experiments and observations referred to in . . . the contested regulation were not mere conjecture but amounted to sufficiently reliable and cogent scientific evidence for them to conclude that there was a proper scientific basis for a possible link between the use of virginiamycin as an additive in feedingstuffs and the development of streptogramin resistance in humans.
Id. ¶ 389.