Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Graham to be Feted by Industry Lobbyists
Well, the corporate special interests really did appreciate being placed above the public interest -- so much so, they wanted to put their money where their mouth is and host a reception for outgoing OIRA administrator John Graham. From the Washington Post:

Did you mark your calendars next week for a "farewell reception" Tuesday "honoring John Graham ," the administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at the Office of Management and Budget?
That's the super-powerful office that oversees many business regulations. The lobbying firm Valis Associates, which lists manufacturing, telecommunications and energy groups among its 2005 clients, had booked the Committee on Small Business room in the Rayburn House Office Building for the event.
Graham has often been blasted for being pro-business, and some hypersensitive eyebrows arched yesterday about this gathering. But he is leaving his job March 1, and people throw farewell receptions all the time to thank oversight officials for jobs well done.
Even so, OMB spokesman Alex Conant , asked yesterday about the reception, said: "After it was first cleared by the ethics office, our understanding of the basic event changed and no longer fits within our ethical guidelines, so it was canceled." We're told the cancellation came around 5:30 p.m.

Why would corporate special interests be so enamored of the head of such an obscure office? Find out more in The Graham Files.

Posted by Robert Shull, 05:12:13 PM

Monday, January 23, 2006

Making Our Food Less Safe
The Detroit Free Press reports on a new industry-led effort to ban state and local governments from limiting genetically engineered products in their communities. In response to local initiatives in towns and counties in California and New England that ban raising genetically-engineered crops, state legislatures in18 states have put forward proposals "that would bar towns and counties from enacting local legislation to regulate genetically engineered seed." Initiatives have already passed in 14 of the 18 states.

Genetically-engineered foods pose a variety of known risks both to humans and to the security of the nation's food supply. Moreover, as a relatively new technological advancement, genetically-engineered products also pose many unknown risks as well. The legislation bars communities from enacting the precautionary principle, which would require new technologies be proven safe before being adopted.

Moreover, the situation exemplifies the problems facing state advocacy. Though states have often surpassed the federal government in achieving strong and responsive public protections, they have also presented an easy target for industry special interests whose legislative agendas may meet more resistance in the national arena. Just as state initiatives may present great opportunities for advancing social goods, they are also susceptible to the vast influence of corporate special interests.

More on the hazards of genetically-modified crops: Nanotech, Genetically Modified Crops Spotlights Regulatory Gaps (11/01/2005)

More on state progressive reform: States Present Opportunities and Pitfalls for Progressive Reform (8/22/2005)

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 11:26:07 AM

Tuesday, January 10, 2006

Reading about Risk
Click here for a deeply insightful report from Public Citizen on many of the policy issues now at stake in the White House's new Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin. Published when John Graham was nominated to head OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, it tracks the relationship of corporate special interest money and a cottage industry of aggressively manipulating the discourse of risk to pursue anti-regulatory ends. It includes a very thoughtful engagement with the risk scholarship of Graham and his ilk.

Posted by Robert Shull, 02:06:44 PM

Wednesday, January 04, 2006

West Virginia Mine Tragedy: In the Days to Come
The Department of Labor's Mine Safety and Health Administration will investigate the causes and circumstances of the West Virginia coal mine tragedy. Members of Congress are also calling for oversight hearings, which may be all too necessary, if MSHA's history is any guide. In the early days of the Bush administration, when a mining industry executive was placed in charge of the agency that regulates the mining industry, MSHA cut short an investigation into a mine safety accident: a breach of an impoundment that sent hundreds of millions of gallons of toxic coal slurry into the environment in Kentucky and West Virginia. The affected communities are still reeling from the health effects and inadequate public health response.

As press interest faded in the Martin County case, revived only by the sexiness of a whistleblower story, the ongoing aftermath of that failure has gone under the radar. Maybe this time things will be different.

Posted by Robert Shull, 03:38:40 PM

Latest Entries by Theme

Cost-Benefit Analysis