New federal limits from the Environmental Protection Agency aimed at reducing ozone pollution unfortunately miss the mark.

The new rules would reduce the amount of allowable ground-level ozone — the pollutant that triggers smog comprised of industrial emissions, vehicle exhaust, gas vapors and other chemical solvents — from 84 parts per billion to 75 parts per billion.

That helps. But in setting the new limits, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson rejected recommendations from his own scientists who suggested limits be tightened to 60 to 70 parts per billion to protect public health.

Numerous health studies show reducing pollutants even by five parts per billion will have a dramatic impact on public health. Scientists from the Environmental Defense Fund point to the EPA's own studies that show cutting the ozone limits to 65 parts per billion, in the range suggested by scientists, would prevent thousands of premature deaths.

The EPA's Web site clearly states the health risks associated with ozone. Breathing ozone, according to the EPA, triggers a variety of health problems and can worsen bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

Point taken.

So why not push for tougher standards? Politics, no doubt. And economics surely played a role. In fact, Johnson is pushing Congress to change the Clean Air Act so that cost can be used as a factor in setting regulations. The Clean Air Act rightly places public health as the basis for any new regulations. And it should stay that way. Changing clean air standards based on the interests of polluters rather than science and public health is not the way to go.

Improving air quality won't come cheap. In fact many cities in the United States will have a tough time meeting the new standard.

But it can be done. The European Commission, for example, sets its ozone limits at 61 parts per billion; Canada, too, has tougher standards. It's a matter of priorities, and in this case, public health.