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.

Recently, the media has paid a lot of attention to the risk of lead in children's toys and jewelry. Yesterday, USA Today ran a story on another source of potential lead exposure: house paint.

The dangers of lead paint have been recognized for years, but the threat is still real. As the article points out, major problems can occur during the renovation of old houses.

Congress addressed this problem back in 1992. Congress passed a law charging EPA with the responsibility of developing regulations which would require renovators to be adequately trained in the dangers of lead paint and the proper methods for removing or painting over it. According to the law, EPA was to finish work on the regulation by 1996.

In 2006, EPA finally got around to proposing the rule. The agency now hopes to finish work on the regulation by early next year.

The primary responsibility of regulatory agencies like EPA is to enforce federal laws in the spirit — and with the speed — intended by Congress. EPA has failed miserably on this one.

In other news, while Americans tend to keep their lead in house paint, Chinese manufacturers sometimes prefer watercolors. In another incident of dangerous Chinese-made products coming into America, Toys 'R' Us is recalling 27,000 crayon and paint sets, according to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

The National Toxicology Program's Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction (CERHR) has released its final report on bisphenol-A and the adverse effects in humans resulting from exposure. Bisphenol-A is a component of plastics commonly found in a wide variety of consumer products like drink containers and CDs.

As Reg•Watch blogged last week, a group of 38 scientists recently concluded bisphenol-A exposure causes adverse effects in the human reproductive system.

The CERHR report is less conclusive. The panel described the risks to human reproduction as "negligible" and "minimal", according to USA Today. The panel stressed the need for further research before more conclusive findings can be made.

The Environmental Working Group is highly critical of the final report for relying on flawed science and for not taking this opportunity to address the risk of bisphenol-A exposure, an issue environmentalists have been concerned with for many years. Read the Environmental Working Group's statement here.

The CERHR report has been the object of controversy for some time. In March, OMB Watch reported on Sciences International, a contractor with ties to the plastics industry which had been hired by CERHR to prepare the report on bisphenol-A exposure. After it was alleged Sciences International's conflict of interest had led to suspect scientific research, their contract was terminated. However, the contractor's work served as the basis for the final report.

Related Post: Plastics Make It Possible?

Be sure to check out the latest issue of our biweekly newsletter, The Watcher. Regulatory policy articles this time:

Toy Recalls Bring Attention to Commission's Inadequacies

OMB Manipulates Science in Cost-Benefit Analysis for Ozone Rule

Size Matters: Nanotechnologies Present New Challenges

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.

FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach is temporarily suspending a controversial plan to close over half of the agency's testing labs across the country, according to Congress Daily (subscription).

Senior members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the FDA's employee union have expressed serious concern about the proposal. The move to close seven of the 13 testing facilities is particularly strange considering the recent spate of public health nightmares caused by contaminated foods and unsafe drugs.

Read more on the proposal in OMB Watch's latest issue of The Watcher: " Amidst Increased Scrutiny, FDA Wants to Shut Testing Labs."

Yesterday was a busy day for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The panel approved legislation which would force EPA to decide on California's request to implement its own vehicle emissions standards. (More on California's request here.)

The bill — introduced by Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bill Nelson (D-FL) — would also prevent delay from occurring in the future by giving EPA a 180 day window to decide on future requests.

The committee approved the bill 10-9 on party lines. The bill will now move to the Senate floor. A House committee is considering similar legislation.

The EPW Committee yesterday also approved a bill which would overturn an EPA regulation easing reporting requirements for the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). The bill would restore the stronger reporting thresholds that were in place for almost twenty years and remove EPA's authority to alter the program's reporting requirements without the approval of Congress.

That bill will also move to the Senate floor. Find out more and urge your senators to vote in favor of the bill by clicking here.