Regulatory Policy - RegWatch

RegWatch:

News & Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room

Friday, February 18, 2005

The Environmental Protection Agency is illegally negotiating secret agreements with industry lobbyists over pesticide regulation, according to a lawsuit filed today by NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council). The lawsuit specifically cites private agreements between the agency and chemical companies over the regulation of atrazine, one of the most heavily used weed-killers in the country, and DDVP, a highly toxic insecticide. NRDC contends the agreements have undermined public health safeguards by failing to restrict the use of these dangerous chemicals. Learn more.
Another major legal action, this time from Earthjustice, challenging the Bush administration's new rules for managing the nation's 192 million acre National Forest System. The challenged regulations are supposed to govern activities on all national forests and ensure the protection of wildlife and the environment, but the Bush administration has watered them down to the point that they are virtually meaningless. Environmental groups charge that the Bush administration rules reverse more than 20 years of protection for wildlife and other resources without any scientific basis; requirements to use quantitative measurements of wildlife populations and mandatory duties to conserve wildlife on national forests have been eliminated or made discretionary. Learn more.
Mercury rising, redux: the latest development in the contentious effort to regulate emissions from coal-fired power plants of the powerful neurotoxin mercury. EPA has agreed to decide by this summer whether there will be mandatory mercury emissions reductions for a 13-state non-attainment area. Learn more.
How much pollution is in your body? California legislators are promoting a state bill that would establish a statewide, voluntary and confidential program to measure chemical contaminants in people. If enacted, the legislation would make California the first state in the nation to conduct a biomonitoring program, joining Canada and a number of European countries that already have national breast milk monitoring programs. Biomonitoring data would allow the state to begin to study the relationship between exposure to harmful chemicals and its effects on human health. Learn more.

Posted by Robert Shull, 11:10:46 AM

Monday, February 14, 2005

Politicized Science Puts Endangered Species at Risk
A survey of scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that more than 200 scientists say that conclusions of official findings have been reversed to weaken protections for fish and wildlife in order to aid industry. The study, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in conjunction with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, also found that more than half of the researchers who responded knew of cases in which industries had used political pressure to alter government findings unfavorable to their business interests. The survey also found the following:

Nearly half of all respondents whose work is related to endangered species scientific findings (44 percent) reported that they "have been directed, for non-scientific reasons, to refrain from making jeopardy or other findings that are protective of species." One in five agency scientists revealed they have been instructed to compromise their scientific integrity-reporting that they have been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a USFWS scientific document;"

More than half of all respondents (56 percent) reported cases where "commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention;" and

More than a third (42 percent) said they could not openly express "concerns about the biological needs of species and habitats without fear of retaliation" in public while nearly a third (30 percent) felt they could not do so even inside the confines of the agency. Almost a third (32 percent) felt they are not allowed to do their jobs as scientists.

In an article on the survey, the L.A. Times quoted one retired Fish and Wildlife Services biologist who said, "Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases. As a scientist, I would probably say you really can’t trust the science coming out of the agency."

Posted by Genevieve Smith, 12:10:28 PM

Monday, February 07, 2005

IG Report Finds Bias in EPA Mercury Rule
A report by EPAï¿½s Inspector General Nikki Tinsley has confirmed what public interest groups have been saying all along; EPAï¿½s mercury rule is biased towards industry and fails to serve the public interest. From the Washington Post:

The Environmental Protection Agency ignored scientific evidence and agency protocols in order to set limits on mercury pollution that would line up with the Bush administration's free-market approaches to power plant pollution, according to a report released yesterday by the agency's inspector general.
Staff at the EPA were instructed by administrators to set modest limits on mercury pollution, and then had to work backward from the predetermined goal to justify the proposal, according to a report by Inspector General Nikki Tinsley.

Of course officials at EPA have already begun the smear campaign of the IG report, saying Tinsley overstepped her area of expertise and did not fully understand the situation. However, according to the Washington Post, EPA staff who attended meetings on the mercury rule corroborated information in the IG report: