The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is once again changing its tune on when it will announce plans to protect the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act. The agency has said it needs 10 more weeks to make the decision, according to the Associated Press.

The legal deadline for making the decision was Jan. 9. At that time, FWS, which is an agency within the Department of the Interior, said it would make its decision in early February. The latest announcement of delay indicates the decision may be pushed into early July at the earliest.

How could FWS's estimates be so off? In early January, FWS thought it only needed about another month to decide. But apparently, it needed another six months. That's quite the miscalculation.

Meanwhile, another agency within the Interior Department (the Minerals Management Service) has been working hastily to hand out permits to oil and gas companies to drill in areas in Alaska where the polar bear lives. Because FWS has yet to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, the companies do not legally have to take into consideration the effects of their operations on the bears' habitats.

Kassie Siegel of the Center for Biological Diversity, a group which has filed suit to force the agency to make a decision, recognizes that FWS is callously delaying its decision to help out the oil and gas industry. According to the AP, "The request for more time, Siegel said, is probably a tactic to delay a decision until the Minerals Management Service can finish issuing offshore petroleum leases in the Chukchi Sea off Alaska's northwest shore, home to one of two polar bear populations in Alaska."

The Interior Department's Inspector General is investigating the delay.

The National Institutes of Health's National Toxicology Program (NTP) released a report today that acknowledges adverse health effects associated with exposure to Bisphenol-A, according to The Washington Post. Bisphenol-A is a chemical substance common in plastics and in the lining of food cans.

According to the Post, the report, released in draft form, "Says exposure to the chemical may be linked to breast cancer, prostate cancer, early puberty in girls and such behavioral changes as hyperactivity."

NTP's findings are significant because, until now, the federal government has downplayed the effects of Bisphenol-A. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration — which, like the National Institutes of Health, is part of the Department of Health and Human Services — has said Bisphenol-A does not pose a "safety concern at the current exposure level."

But an ongoing investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee has shown that FDA relied on industry-funded studies to make its determination. Meanwhile, public health advocates and scientists outside of government have raised concern for years about the safety of Bisphenol-A.

Unfortunately, because NTP cannot regulate chemicals, FDA still holds all the power on this issue. Stay tuned to Reg•Watch to see if FDA issues a response.

Reg•Watch Update: In Response to Bisphenol-A Studies, Retailers Will Remove Products"

The USDA is preparing to finalize a rule that would help consumers identify grocery stores that recalled meat has been sold to. Typically, under current regulations, neither USDA nor slaughterhouses and processors disclose the names of retailers who have received potentially contaminated meat. USDA does disclose the brand and type of meat but, by failing to name retailers, leaves consumers in the dark as to whether their community might be at risk.

While the rule would be a step in the right direction, the devil is in the details (as it so often is with the Bush administration). Insiders say the new rule may only apply to Class I recalls. USDA classifies recalls based on the potential risk to public health; Class I recalls are for products which pose the highest risk, Class II and III recalls are for products which pose lower risks.

Most meat recalls are Class I (50 of 58 in 2007), but consumers have a right — and a need — to know about Class II and III recalls as well. For example, USDA classified an April 2007 recall of more than 5,000 pounds of salami as a Class II recall but also called the health risk "high."

February's record-breaking recall of 143 million pounds of beef was also deemed a Class II recall. USDA and Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Co. recalled the meat because "the cattle did not receive complete and proper inspection" and nonambulatory, or downer, cows were allowed into the food supply. Downer cows are at greater risk for carrying mad cow disease. USDA's new policy would still leave consumers uninformed if a similar incident occurred in the future.

USDA has sent the rule to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the White House Office of Management and Budget for review. OIRA is friendly with lobbyists from the meat producing and packaging industries who oppose USDA's rule. Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Andrew Schneider has more:

The pressure on the agencies to conceal the retailers is coming from industry lobbyists for food chains, meat packers and importers. In fact, USDA first proposed a regulation requiring disclosure of where dangerous recalled food is being sold in February 2005. Nothing has happened since.

Tony Corbo of public advocacy group Food & Water Watch told me, "The main impediment has been the White House Office of Management and Budget which is responsible for clearing major regulation changes.

"The food industry has effectively lobbied OMB thus far to prevent the implementation of this rule."

As the clock runs out on the Bush presidency, OIRA may finally let USDA finalize the rule in its weakest form possible for fear that a new administration may push for tougher regulations. Stay tuned to Reg•Watch for updates.

The House yesterday took a step toward regulating tobacco products, as the Energy and Commerce Committee voted 32-12 in favor of giving oversight authority to the Food and Drug Administration.

Among other things, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (H.R. 1108) would allow FDA to set standards for nicotine content in cigarettes and to exert control over the marketing and advertising of tobacco products. The bill would not permit FDA to ban nicotine outright. The bill would allow FDA to collect user fees — a controversial process whereby regulated companies pay the federal government to inspect and oversee their products — in order to fund a new tobacco regulation office. (More info here.)

The federal government can regulate lots of products that have the potential to do harm including food, pharmaceuticals, and vehicles. Yet on tobacco, a product certain to do harm, government is completely powerless.

Industry pressure has kept tobacco off the government's regulatory radar, as a New York Times editorial states this morning: "For years, the industry greedily fought off regulation with mendacious denials and addictive donations to lawmakers' re-election kitties."

This time around, the tobacco industry is divided. Phillip Morris has expressed support for the bill, but Reynolds American is opposed. Reynolds claims that FDA is ill-equipped to handle the additional regulatory challenge.

If you're waiting for FDA to set the record straight on its ability to regulate tobacco, don't hold your breath. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach said last year that placing tobacco under the agency's purview would be a burden, according to The Wall Street Journal (subscription). The Journal also reports President Bush may veto the bill if Congress finalizes it this year.

FDA is an underfunded agency, and the lack of funding has made it difficult for FDA to fulfill its mission. However, the user fee program should provide a steady source of income. According to the Journal, "The House panel estimates that the FDA will collect $85 million from tobacco companies in the first year and eventually assess fees of $712 million in the next decade."

Moreover, FDA should not shy away from the responsibility to regulate tobacco because it cannot afford to do so. Instead, it should embrace tobacco regulation, then zealously push Congress to provide robust funding for all the agency's activities.

An investigation by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel examines a little-known EPA program which is supposed to study the effects of common chemicals on children's health. Journal Sentinel reporters Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger found major flaws.

Among other things, the investigation finds the program (the Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program) is relying on advisory panels stacked with industry scientists, has had little luck in getting chemical makers to cooperate with requests for data, and has been broke since August.

Instead of regulating the chemical companies, the EPA invited them to interpret and present data to a panel of scientists on the risks and exposures of chemicals they made. The approach was hailed by chemical company lobbyists as "breathtakingly significant." …

The format was simple. Companies were to present data about their chemicals' toxic properties and likely exposure to a panel of scientists. That panel would then determine if the chemical was safe to use around children. If not enough was known, the EPA would ask the company to provide more information. …

The voluntary nature of the program has proved to be a problem with enforcing safety, children's health advocates say. Although the EPA can request more information about a chemical from the compound makers, companies are not required to answer. And many don't.

"The EPA has no hammer," said Melanie Marty, chairwoman of the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee.

The investigation also finds a gross lack of transparency in the program. EPA does not publicly announce the dates of meetings, and the agency does not separate out the program's budget, making it nearly impossible to determine the program's cost to taxpayers.

Jay Berkelhamer, former president of the American Academy of Pediatrics, last year urged EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson to abandon the program in favor of "a mandatory program with stricter deadlines and a more transparent, accountable review system." Meanwhile, Johnson "repeatedly points to the program in public statements as proof that his agency is committed to protecting children," according to the Journal Sentinel.