Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Credo Mobile

HOME

ABOUT US

OUR ISSUES

Federal Budget

Information & Access

Nonprofit Advocacy


PRESS ROOM

ACTION CENTER

PUBLICATIONS

THE WATCHER

OUR BLOGS


SIGN UP

Receive news, updates, and alerts!

DONATE

Help support our work


OTHER SITES

FedSpending.org

RTK NET

NPAction

Working Group on Community Right-to-Know

Citizens for Sensible Safeguards

Open the Government

OMB Watch Logo

"[P]eople acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about." - FDR

Home :  Regulatory Policy :  RegWatch : 
RegWatch:     

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

 R    E    G    •    W    A    T    C    H 


Friday, May 19, 2006

Nanotechnology: Data Quality Act Strikes Again
Environmental groups seeking stronger regulation of products containing nanotechnology, such as sunscreen and cosmetics, may be thwarted by the Data Quality Act, a provision that allows individuals (or industry groups) to challenge the integrity of government science.

The industry-backed Center for Regulatory Effectiveness, fronted by DQA author Jim Tozzi, plans to lead the charge against stricter nanotechnology regulations, but it’s clear Tozzi’s real incentive is not to ensure sound science but to keep nanotechnology companies in business. Greenwire (subscription-only) reports that Tozzi sent an email to nanotechnology groups claiming that the petition by green groups for stricter nanotechnology regulations “will seriously curtail nanotech programs.” Tozzi went on to say, “The Center for Regulatory Effectiveness will invoke the recent Data Quality Act to oppose the petition. . . . If you are interested in participating in the formulation and implementation of CRE’s strategy, please contact me.” According to the article, Tozzi received a large and favorable response to his email.

Read more about the Data Quality Act.

Read the environmentalists’ petition to FDA on nanotechnology.

Read more from OMB Watch on the need for nanotechnology regulation.

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 02:42:41 PM



Wednesday, May 03, 2006

The "Sound Science" Smokescreen
Be sure to check out the new Knight-Ridder piece examining the strategic deployment of the term "sound science" to achieve decidedly political aims. Here's a taste:
The Bush administration, senators, industrialists and farmers repeatedly invoke the term "sound science" to delay or deep-six policies they oppose and dismiss criticism of those they favor.

The administration has waved it at such diverse issues as global warming, beef imports, air pollution and arsenic in drinking water. Last Thursday, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta used the phrase to slow a congressional bid to raise the U.S. passenger vehicle mileage standard. "An administrative process based on sound science" should precede any change, Mineta said.

No one, however, is sure what "sound science" means.

The phrase has more to do with anti-regulatory lobbying than with laboratory results, said Donald Kennedy, the former head of the Food and Drug Administration and now the editor in chief of the influential magazine Science.

"Sound science is whatever somebody likes," Kennedy said. "It's essentially a politically useful term, but it doesn't have any normative meaning whatsoever. My science is sound science, and the science of my enemies is junk science."

The phrase has been on a roll since 1992, when lobbyists for the tobacco industry argued that no "sound science" showed that secondhand smoke is a health hazard.

Within a year, a group called "The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition" - backed by the Philip Morris company - was invoking "sound science" to oppose not only tobacco curbs but also regulation of hazardous industrial chemicals such as dioxin.

In a 2002 speech to the National Economists Club in Washington, John Graham, who designed the Bush administration's initiative to vet proposed federal regulations, called "sound science" the basis of his agency's reviews.

Graham, then President Bush's administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, said that would result in "a smart process (that) adopts new rules when market and local choices fail, modifies existing rules to make them more effective or less costly, and rescinds outmoded rules whose benefits no longer justify their costs."

--Iris Kuo, "`Sound science' isn't just a catch phrase - it's a real persuader," May 3, 2006


Posted by Robert Shull, 06:37:13 PM




Latest Entries by Theme

All Themes

Enforcement

About This Blog

Rollbacks

Safety

Industry Influence

Cost-Benefit Analysis

In Congress

Publications

Consumer Issues

Environment

Public Health

In the Courts

Oversight

In the White House

Most Recent Entries for RegWatch

New Website Highlights Old Office of Technology Assessment

For Mysterious Occupational Risk Rule, Shenanigans Abound

Find out How Much You're Worth. Take our Trip around the Beltway.

On Consumer Product Bill, More Work Remains

Will Congress Wrap Up Consumer Safety Bill?

Bush Administration Says Americans Are Worth Less

Lawmakers Probe on Occupational Risk Rulemaking

Bush Administration Will Ignore Its Own Notice on CO2 Emissions

On Food Tracking, FDA Says "Not Our Responsibility"

America's Wetlands Sullied by Supreme Court Decision

Archived Entries for Consumer Issues

July

May

April

March

February

January

December, 2007

November, 2007

October, 2007

September, 2007

August, 2007

July, 2007

June, 2007

May, 2007

April, 2007

March, 2007

February, 2007

January, 2007

December, 2006

November, 2006

October, 2006

September, 2006

August, 2006

May, 2006

April, 2006

February, 2006

January, 2006

December, 2005

November, 2005

October, 2005

September, 2005

August, 2005

July, 2005

June, 2005

May, 2005

April, 2005

March, 2005

February, 2005

January, 2005

December, 2004

November, 2004

October, 2004

September, 2004