In July, former Surgeon General Richard Carmona reported political appointees within the Bush administration suppressed his work. Now, hard evidence of the manipulation is surfacing, as The Washington Post reports today.

Yesterday, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) released a batch of emails proving the political interference. In one email, a consultant within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) wrote to HHS's White House liason in the run-up to the '04 election: "He needs to be the SG [Surgeon General] with specific speeches, on specific topics addressing the Secretary's and the president's agenda — which will become more political as the re-elect gets underway,"

That's about as blatant as it gets.

In a related story, you've probably heard of Big Tobacco and Big Oil, but what about Big Baby Formula? (Editors note: "Big" refers to the size of the formula lobby, not the size of the baby.)

According The Washington Post, HHS bowed to lobbyists from the baby formula industry by toning down TV commercials promoting breast-feeding.

HHS also downplayed a scientific report which shows an association between breast-feeding and decreased health risks, according to the article.

A top HHS official said that at the time, Suzanne Haynes, an epidemiologist and senior science adviser for the department's Office on Women's Health, argued strongly in favor of promoting the new conclusions in the media and among medical professionals. But her office, which commissioned the report, was specifically instructed by political appointees not to disseminate a news release.

Yesterday, EPA held two public hearings on the agency's proposed revision to the national standard for ozone (a.k.a. smog) exposure. In June, EPA proposed tightening the standard within a range of 0.070 to 0.075 parts per million. The current standard is 0.084 ppm.

The Philadelphia Enquirer and The Los Angeles Times report on the hearings in their respective cities. In both hearings, speakers expressed displeasure with the proposal. Public health advocates and local citizens demand an even stricter standard, while industry representatives want to maintain the status quo.

Both articles offer compelling tales of speakers afflicted with asthma who feel as though the government has a responsibility to step in and ensure the safety of the human environment. Both articles also point out supporters of tighter standards outnumbered industry reps during the hearings.

Industry representatives likely know EPA is under a legal and moral obligation to tighten the standard. But the manufacturing industry is concerned the proposal may hurt their bottom line. They resort to two arguments in attempts to defeat EPA's efforts.

The Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has launched a new program which will increase the Office's interference in federal agencies' regulatory practices — specifically, in the selection of regulations agencies choose to review after they have already taken effect.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued a report which describes what it calls retrospective reviews. These reviews are attempts by federal agencies to assess the effectiveness of federal regulations and identify opportunities for improvement.

Agencies may conduct these reviews for a variety of reasons. Under Section 610 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, agencies are required to perform reviews of major rules every ten years. However, the GAO report finds agencies often choose to review rules earlier, either in response to public or industry requests or at their own discretion. From reading the report, it appears as though this ad hoc method is more effective than the prescriptive Section 610 reviews.

The GAO report also finds agencies have limited time and resources to devote to regulatory reviews. What agencies don't need is more forced reviews and outside meddling from SBA or their White House cronies at OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. (OMB has engaged in a similar program during the Bush administration, strong-arming agencies into reviewing rules it finds objectionable. About 20 percent of the reviews studied by GAO were conducted at OMB's behest.)

Agencies are handling the selection of rules to review just fine on their own. Room for improvement does exist though, according to GAO. Agencies should adopt standard practices for conducting reviews, should document the reviews more thoroughly, and should improve participation by engaging the public in the review process and making results more transparent.

Agency resources would be better spent working toward those goals rather than dealing with this new SBA program.

A recent spate of recalls involving toys and jewelry contaminated with alarmingly high levels of lead has revived the debate over whether the federal government should tighten standards on lead exposure.

The Fashion Jewelry Trade Association is endorsing a tighter standard, according to BNA news service (subscription). Apparently, jewelry manufacturers are already complying with California regulations and would prefer a uniform national standard. Of course, this would have the added bonus of protecting all Americans from jewelry containing dangerous lead levels.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission would be the federal agency responsible for developing and enforcing the rule. Until a few weeks ago, CPSC had been prohibited from conducting formal business due to a commissioner vacancy. President Bush has failed to nominate a suitable commissioner and has instead seemed pleased to watch the agency fall into a state of regulatory disrepair.

Fortunately, CPSC recently had its powers reinstated by a provision that was slipped into an unrelated bill. Those powers expire again in six months though, so it would behoove CPSC to get working on a proposed rule.

Earlier today, Reg•Watch blogged about the problem of the Consumer Product Safety Commission's reliance on voluntary recalls.

CPSC is not alone in choosing to make nice with industry rather than taking the lead itself. In fact, the Department of Labor wrote the book on it. The Pump Handle blog has a post criticizing the use of "compliance assistance" in the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (both within Labor). The concerns are especially relevant in light of the current Crandall mine tragedy.

Read the Pump Handle's post: MSHA, OSHA, and "Compliance Assistance".

New York Governor Elliot Spitzer is using state law to enforce a mandatory recall of children's toys contaminated by lead paint. Mattel has been forced to recall about 20 million toys this month. However, due to the nature of the federal regulatory system for product safety, those recalls are voluntary.

In a statement, the governor said, "The federal government's limited powers of enforcement and voluntary recalls are not enough to protect our children from the dangers of lead poisoning and other hazards." Spitzer goes on to blame the priorities of the Bush administration. The statement calls the federal regulator, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, "woefully understaffed and underfunded."

In related news, Los Angeles Times writer David Lazarus has an aptly titled column: "Gaping holes in product safety net." Lazarus describes in more detail the problems with CPSC's reliance on voluntary recalls.

He also reminds us of the disregard with which President Bush treats product safety. CPSC has been without a commissioner for over a year, and President Bush seems to be in no hurry to nominate a suitable candidate. Worse, Bush keeps slashing the budget of CPSC. (The agency's staff is less than half of what it was 30 years ago, according to Lazarus.)

Both stories get down to the idea of the responsibility of government. Congress creates agencies like CPSC to respond to public crises. When 20 million dangerous toys could be in the hands of 20 million children, government — not industry — should be calling the shots.

Reg•Watch Update: Letting Industry Take the Lead, MSHA, OSHA and compliance assistance.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) has the dirt on the efforts of the big three — General Motors, Ford and Chrysler — to mislead the public about the benefits of improved fuel efficiency. The automakers are holding a public rally as part of lobbying efforts to persuade federal legislators to abandon proposed fuel efficiency reform, according to UCS.

The Senate has passed a bill that would strengthen the federal fuel efficiency program, known as CAFE standards. The House chose not to tackle the issue in its own energy legislation. However, Democratic leaders may push to include CAFE reform during conference proceedings before the final bill is sent to the president.

According to UCS, if the new standard was fully implemented, it would, among other things, "cut 206 million metric tons of global warming pollution in 2020 alone—equivalent to taking more than 30 million of today's average cars and trucks off the road."

But full implementation is far from a given. The Senate unwisely included a cost-benefit provision in its version of CAFE reform. Currently, the national minimum rate for fuel efficiency is a static 27.5 miles per gallon and remains as such regardless of monetized costs or benefits. The Senate bill would change that: The legislation would require regulators to prove a new standard's benefits outweigh its costs before regulating.

For more on the problems with the cost-benefit provision and why it may lead to watered-down standards, see the OMB Watch analysis "Cost-Benefit Provision Latches onto Fuel Economy Standard."

Several new documents raise concern over the safety of the chemical Bisphenol-A, according to The Los Angeles Times. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a widely-used compound found in hard plastics including baby bottles and drink containers. Despite its ubiquity, federal agencies have done little to study its effects or regulate its use.

In one document, the National Institutes of Health found health problems in newborn animals exposed to BPA. The LA Times article states, "It is the first time BPA has been linked to disorders of the female reproductive tract."

Also, a group of 38 scientists, including some from government, summarized 700 studies on BPA and concluded the compound poses serious threats to human reproductive health. The scientists published their consensus in the journal Reproductive Toxicology.

Not surprisingly, the plastics industry has taken exception with the scientific findings. From the article:

"Considering many of these people have made their views known in the past, is there any surprise? Is there really anything new?" said Steve Hentges of the American Chemistry Council's polycarbonate/BPA group.

Reg•Watch has heard industry lobbyists attack science many times, but this is perhaps the lamest attempt. Is there error in reaffirming one's position? Just because this has been said before doesn't make it any less true. If anything, these scientists should be commended for their vigilance. Kudos scientists!

In other BPA news, the Pump Handle blog has an update on a conflicted contractor performing scientific research for NIH which OMB Watch reported on a few months back.

Diacetyl is a component of the artificial butter flavoring found in microwave popcorn. Exposure during the manufacturing process can cause a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans which reduces quality of life and causes premature mortality. Unfortunately, the disease has acquired the moniker "popcorn workers lung."

While Congress is pushing for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue a new regulation, the agency has taken a positive (albeit belated) step by examining regulations already on the books which could improve the situation.

Last week, OSHA announced a National Emphasis Program with the intent of reducing or eliminating exposure to the butter-flavoring chemical. Among other things, the Program instructs all manufacturers using the chemicals to assess employee exposure levels. OSHA points out in bold-faced type that employers "must conduct" the assessments under the Respiratory Protection standard (29 CFR 1910.134).

But OSHA and Congress should watch out. Industry lobbyists and senior congressional Republicans are using their favorite tactic to undermine regulations: attacking the underlying science.

According to Inside OSHA (subscription), Rep. Howard McKeon (R-CA) said, "There is no clear scientific evidence that diacetyl alone causes 'popcorn lung' disease." A coalition including the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce claimed the bill would "completely ignore" requirements which "make sure OSHA standards reflect the best science available."

McKeon and his industry allies should try reading the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health study which found "inhalation exposure to butter flavoring chemicals is a risk for occupational lung disease."