The Environmental Protection Agency set a new standard last month for the amount of pollution-forming ozone allowed into the air, but environmental health experts have criticized the new standard as being too tolerant of dangerous pollutants.

The new standard is the most demanding to date. According to an EPA news release, 75 parts of pollution-forming ozone per billion over an eight-hour period are allowed. The previous standard was 80 parts per billion.

Fred Butterfield, designated federal officer for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, which provided recommendations for the new standard, said his committee initially recommended that a level of 60 to 70 parts per billion be enacted.

Gene Takle, interim director of agronomy and geological and atmospheric sciences, said he believes high tropospheric ozone concentrations are mainly related to emissions from automobiles.

He said air pollution inhibits the ability of plants to properly transform carbon dioxide into plant matter, in addition to more direct health issues.

“It’s been projected that soybeans in the central U.S. have been affected by tropospheric ozone,” Takle said.

David Bryan, EPA public affairs specialist for the agency’s Region 7, which includes Iowa, said the change in the air pollution standard was based on a long-term collection of data from approximately 1,700 scientific studies since the standard was first set in 1997.

Bryan said the EPA lowered the level “as part of modernizing and safeguarding public health.”

Bryan said the new standard is the beginning of a process in which the EPA will work with individual states’ departments of natural resources to assess whether or not areas of those states go over the new standard. If some areas do, Bryan said the relevant states will be given a plan to reduce air pollution to the new standard.

“It’s incumbent upon everyone to reduce pollution levels for the health benefits that would produce,” Bryan said. He said there is no plan to continue lowering the standard from its new level.

Carolyn Raffensperger, founding executive director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, said she does not think the new EPA standard is stringent enough.

Raffensperger said public health experts who have looked at the new standard and are not connected with industry found the new standard insufficient.

She does not consider the economic benefits of polluting factors something that should pertain to setting standards.

“I think what we see is that this administration always supports the economic benefits of the few over the public health of everyone,” Raffensperger said. “We do not ask what the dollar contribution of child labor is, or sex trafficking . but with environmental pollution, we do.”

Raffensperger said arguing over a specific amount of allowable pollution is not helpful. She suggested having a larger goal of completely clean air, which would then encourage people to look at alternatives to polluting factors.

If the EPA simply sets a number for an allowable amount, Raffensperger said the Environmental Protection Agency “should really be renamed the Environmental Pollution Agency.”

Raffensperger said some of the main health problems air pollution can cause are cardiac and respiratory problems such as asthma, which the elderly and children are particularly vulnerable.