Zero-risk bias

This conclusion resembled one from an earlier economics study that found people were willing to pay high costs to eliminate a risk.

In American federal policy, the Delaney clause outlawing cancer-causing additives from foods (regardless of actual risk) and the desire for perfect cleanup of Superfund sites have been alleged to be overly focused on complete elimination.

Furthermore, the effort needed to implement zero-risk laws grew as technological advances enabled the detection of smaller quantities of hazardous substances.

[8] Critics of the zero-risk bias model cite that it has the tendency to neglect overall risk reduction.

For instance, when eliminating two side effects, it holds that the complete eradication of just one side-effect is preferable to lowering the overall risk.