The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently made changes to its program for studying the toxic effects of industrial chemicals — the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Under the revised process, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is given unprecedented control over the content and conduct of these studies.

Today, OMB Watch released a factsheet "OMB Interferes in IRIS Assessments of Toxic Chemicals," which details the problems with the revised process. The factsheet answers the following questions:

• What is IRIS?
• How does OMB interfere in IRIS assessments?
• How does the new IRIS assessment process make matters worse?
• Why is the IRIS assessment process important?

Also today, the House Science Committee's subcommittee on Investigation and Oversight held a hearing on the changes to the IRIS process. Committee members and witnesses focused their discussion on the transparency, or lack thereof, in OMB's review of IRIS assessments and on the slow pace of completion of IRIS assessments. (EPA has completed only four assessments in the past two years.)

The committee heard from John Stephenson, the Director of Natural Resources and Environment for the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Stephenson's testimony was based on a recent GAO report critical of OMB's involvement in the IRIS assessment process.

Stephenson's primary complaint about the IRIS process is that any comments from OMB or other federal agencies will not be disclosed to the public. Stephenson also warned additional steps included in the revised process could further slow EPA's efforts to complete assessments.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), chair of the panel, released a document that reveals the opinions of EPA staff scientists on OMB's role in the IRIS assessment process. In responding to GAO's report, staff involved in the IRIS program said OMB's comments are often "troubling to address" and the OMB review process "has added tremendously to the time it takes to release" draft and final assessments.

An investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee shows that the White House pressured the Environmental Protection Agency to refuse a request by the state of California to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

In December, EPA denied a California petition, or waiver, that would have allowed the state to set standards for greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Under the Clean Air Act, only the federal government may regulate vehicle emissions; but California — and only California — may request permission to set up its own regulatory scheme. If EPA grants California permission (as it had with every request prior to this one), other states may choose between California's program and the federal program. At least 15 other states were prepared to follow California's plan, if permitted.

When EPA announced the denial, Administrator Stephen Johnson claimed the decision was his alone. But the denial of the California petition had the White House's fingerprints all over it. Last fall, Vice President Dick Cheney met with executives from Ford and Chrysler who urged him to deny the request, according to the investigation. The White House Council on Environmental Quality (along with the Transportation Department) lobbied U.S. representatives and governors urging them to oppose California's efforts.

At the time of the announcement, no hard evidence existed to refute Johnson's claim that he, and not the White House, was responsible for the denial. The deposition of an EPA assistant administrator, taken by the House investigators, begins to shed some light on who was actually responsible for the decision.

Committee investigators heard from EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett, whose carefully chosen words nonetheless cast doubts on Johnson's claim that the Dec. 19 decision to deny the waiver was his alone:

According to Mr. Burnett, Administrator Johnson's preference for a full or partial grant of the waiver did not change until after he communicated with the White House about the matter. When asked by Committee staff "whether the Administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision" to deny the waiver, Mr. Burnett responded: "I believe the answer is yes." When asked "after his communications with the White House, did he still support granting the waiver in part," Mr. Burnett answered: "He ultimately decided to deny the waiver." Mr. Burnett also affirmed that there was "White House input into the rationale in the December 19th letter."

Unfortunately, we still don't know which White House offices or officials pressured EPA. Burnett repeatedly refused to answer the committee's questions on who communicated with EPA or what exactly was discussed. Burnett informed the committee he was under instruction from senior EPA officials to keep that information under wraps.

Check out the Committee's investigation and supporting documents here.

An article in The Daily News (Galveston County, TX) provides yet another example of industry groups asking for federal regulation, realizing that safety is good for business. (Thanks to the Government Accountability Project blog for pointing this out.)

Domestic shrimpers — whose share of the American market has fallen to ten percent, according to the article — want new laws that will empower the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to inspect imported shrimp:

The industry is pressuring the federal government to revamp the way the U.S. Food and Drug Administration inspects shipments — only a tiny fraction are inspected, much less tested — and some in the industry want new laws requiring better disclosure of the origins of seafood.

If a foreign supplier refuses entry to American inspectors, the FDA has no legal authority to deny imports from that supplier, said Michael Taylor, a former FDA policy commissioner and professor of health policy at George Washington University….

The FDA has standards for imported seafood, but even if it did have legal authority to inspect every foreign supplier, government audits reveal the FDA is spread so thin that foreign firms can send potentially harmful seafood to the United States almost at will.

The story also underscores the problems with the bureaucratic morass that governs food safety in the United States. While FDA is responsible for regulating seafood, USDA regulates other kinds of meat like beef and poultry. Although USDA has been under fire recently, its track record on food safety is much better than that of the FDA.

Comparatively, USDA is better resourced and more properly authorized by Congress to conduct the kind of inspections necessary to ensure food safety. Before slaughter, USDA is legally required to inspect every head of cattle and every chicken for health and safety. USDA also inspects imported beef and poultry before it can be placed into commerce. While USDA needs more inspectors, its regulatory regime is intended to be exhaustive.

FDA, on the other hand, conducts risk-based inspections. Essentially, the agency makes educated guesses about where it can make the best use of its resources. FDA inspected just 1.2 percent of imported seafood, according to the article.

As a result, there is increasing concern about both domestic and foreign products under FDA's jurisdiction. In the past couple years, seafood, spinach, pet food, and peanut butter have all made headlines. In each instance, it has seemed that a better-resourced or better-functioning FDA could have reduced the chances of those products becoming contaminated.

As OMB Watch recently reported, a recent U.S. government study on the potentially dangerous effects of bisphenol-A and a proposal by the Canadian government to ban the substance in baby bottles have prompted major manufacturers and retailers to phase out the production and sale of products containing the chemical. Bisphenol-A is a substance commonly found in hard plastics, including water bottles and baby bottles, and resins, including those that line food cans.

But voluntary action by businesses, however responsible and well-intentioned, is no replacement for federal regulations intended to ensure the public is fully protected. So, to whom does the responsibility of regulating bisphenol-A fall?

Since the chemical is contained in the lining of food cans, the Food and Drug Administration could take action. Unfortunately, FDA has said bisphenol-A does not pose a "safety concern at the current exposure level." (A congressional investigation uncovered that FDA had relied on two industry-funded studies in making its determination not to regulate.)

Since the chemical can leach from plastics into the water supply, the Environmental Protection Agency may have a responsibility, but mum's the word at EPA since news broke of bisphenol-A's potentially harmful effects.

Since bisphenol-A is contained in a host of consumer products made of hard, polycarbonate plastic, the Consumer Product Safety Commission may also be obligated to regulate such products. Last week, members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote to CPSC commissioner Nancy Nord on that very subject:

There has been less focus on the possible presence of [bisphenol-A] in infant and children products, which would come under the jurisdiction of the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Were products such as teething rings, pacifiers, and children's flatware to contain [bisphenol-A], they could pose risks of cancer and neurological disorders to infants and young children.

The letter then asks Nord if the commission has done anything in regard to the chemical.

Even though at least three prominent federal agencies could take action, it doesn't seem like any of them intend to regulate, or even study, bisphenol-A. We deserve a government that will work to inform us of the hazards we face so we can maintain at least a modicum of control over the everyday things in our lives; and a government that will work to protect us when we cannot adequately protect ourselves.