In this contribution, we propose that 'sound' government policy should be characterised by a proportionate, integral vision with due consideration to tradeoffs between social costs and benefits. This principle also applies to government policy regarding the protection of workers from exposure to chemicals. It should be taken into account that having a job is a huge health benefit. Less educated people are statistically likely to enjoy ten additional healthy years, if employed. Although there is no debate about the risks of exposure to high doses of chemicals, there is most certainly debate on the magnitude, nature and possible cumulative effects of low-dose exposure to chemicals. These are established by model-based assumptions. The current advisory structure in which the Health Council of the Netherlands restricts its focus to the immediate health benefits for workers on the basis of risk avoidance models, and the Social and Economic Council of the Netherlands which focuses primarily on policy costs for trade and industry, is hardly a sound basis for well-considered decision making. The challenge for the scientific experts is to provide political administrators with an insightful social cost-benefit analysis, including all the concomitant uncertainties.
Keywords: chemicals policy; dose-response models; employment; human health; social benefit–cost analysis.
© The Author(s) 2022.