The New York Times published a terrific op-ed today putting into historical context China's contaminated milk scandal. Some Chinese dairies are cutting milk with a toxic chemical called melamine. The bad milk has killed at least four infants and sickened thousands.

1850's New York saw a similar crisis, author Bee Wilson writes in the Times. Milk producers saw an opportunity to boost sales in a fast-growing city. They created swill milk, "a filthy, bluish substance milked from cows tied up in crowded stables adjoining city distilleries and fed the hot alcoholic mash left from making whiskey," Wilson writes.

Like China's melamine milk, producers added foreign substances to the swill milk with dire consequences:

This too was doctored — with plaster of Paris to take away the blueness, starch and eggs to thicken it and molasses to give it the buttercup hue of honest Orange County milk. This newspaper attributed the deaths of up to 8,000 children a year to this vile fluid.

The situations leading up to the two crises carry common traits: When food producers face great demand for their products, temptation rises; and the public is placed at risk when avarice bests responsibility.

Unfortunately, regulation does not move as swiftly as the market. To straighten out the situation in New York, Wilson writes, "It took stronger food laws, better policing, the advent of pasteurization and the passage of the Food and Drug Act in 1906, 50 years after the worst of swill milk." She adds, "Above all, it took decades, not months or years."

(Inertia still plagues the U.S. government, especially Congress. The Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit group that works on food safety and other important causes, has a list of food safety bills currently pending in Congress. CSPI lists 12 different bills, not one of which has cleared the committee stage.)

So what does that mean for China? Is China decades away from meaningful regulation? It may just be. The Chinese government silences voices representing the public. Government watchdogs and independent advocates are suppressed, and journalists are never out of Beijing's crushing reach. "In China, journalists have known of the poison milk for months, but weren't allowed to spread the news because of the Olympics," Wilson writes.

That is why the U.S. government cannot afford to wait to keep American consumers safe. Congress should explore ways to improve the safety of imported foods, just like it did with imported toys this summer.

A new law reforming the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the agency in charge of toys, household products, and other non-food items, requires third-party testing and certification of imported children's products. The law allows regulators to keep dangerous toys out of American stores and, by extension, allows the U.S. to use its leverage as a major importer to force exporters like China to clean up their act.

Clearly, the federal government needs to cast a wider safety net to protect Americans from the dangers of contaminated food imports. The melamine contamination scandal has already spread into the U.K., where Cadbury has been forced to recall Chinese-made candies.

The 110th Congress sputtered in passing new laws to ensure a safer food supply. The 111th Congress will have to do better.

The White House Office of Management and Budget opposed EPA's efforts to clean up a Montana town contaminated by asbestos, according to a new report. EPA wanted to declare a public health emergency in the town of Libby in order to compel the removal of attic insulation threatening thousands of residents and to extend medical care to residents at risk.

The report, prepared by a team of congressional staff led by the office of Montana Sen. Max Baucus (D), says, "EPA's decision not to declare a public health emergency in 2002 has had a profound and lasting impact on the people of Libby as they continue to struggle with disease and death from asbestos contamination." Although EPA maintains it made the decision, OMB may have pressured it to do so.

Why would OMB oppose the declaration of a public health emergency in Libby? Because it could mean other parts of the country would benefit too. In 2002, EPA convened a meeting with OMB to discuss the situation. "At that meeting, OMB expressed concern about EPA's imminent declaration of a public health emergency because of the precedent it would set for other sets with Libby asbestos and the public concern it could cause."

In other words, the asbestos products sickening Libby residents made it outside of Libby, and other Americans could be at risk. If the government helps Libby residents, it may have to help everyone else…perish the thought.

An OMB official also urged EPA to add language to a memo outlining the cleanup strategy saying, "…activities at this site set no precedent for possible future removals from other locations," according to the report.

EPA used a legal loophole to remove the insulation from Libby homes anyway. But there were other consequences to the agency's refusal to declare an emergency:

The residents of Libby were deprived of medical care from the federal government to which they were legally entitled. A public health emergency existed in Libby in 2002. In cases of a public health emergency caused by exposure to toxic substances, exposed individuals are entitled to medical care from the federal government and other medical assistance as appropriate under the circumstances. Consequently, had a public health emergency been declared, medical care would have been provided by the federal government to the resident of Libby exposed to asbestos.

The report lists other consequences Libby residents faced as a result of OMB's meddling and EPA's refusal to stand up to it. The report is available here.

Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report on the Environmental Protection Agency's policies for considering children's health. GAO's title sums it up well: "EPA Efforts to Address Children's Health Issues Need Greater Focus, Direction, and Top-Level Commitment."

A Clinton-era executive order on children's health created an advisory committee that was to provide expert opinion to government decision makers. But at EPA, the committee's advice has gone unheeded, GAO found. A new article from OMB Watch's The Watcher reports:

EPA requested advice from the committee on regulations only three times, on guidance three times, and only once on developing a policy. Fourteen other times, EPA asked for advice on other issues such as developing plans and evaluating pilot programs. Yet over the period GAO reviewed, the committee sent to over 600 recommendations for action EPA should take on a wide variety of issues, ranging from mercury regulation and farm worker protections to pesticides and air pollution. GAO concluded, "EPA has largely disregarded the advisory committee's recommendations."

One example where EPA has ignored the children's health advisory committee came earlier this year when it finalized a standard for ozone, or smog, weaker than what the entire scientific community — including those experts on the committee — was recommending.

In March 2007, the committee wrote to EPA administrator Stephen Johnson and was quite clear with its scientific opinion: "[I]n order to more protective of the respiratory health of susceptible children, the committee recommends that the EPA choose a standard of 0.060 [parts per million]."

But when Johnson announced the standard in March 2008, he chose 0.075 ppm as the standard. According to the estimates of EPA's staff, choosing a standard of 0.065 ppm — not even as strict as the committee had recommended — could have prevented an additional 8,100 asthma-related emergency room visits for people 18 and younger every year.

Read more about EPA's record of protecting children from environmental hazards.

The Bush administration will continue to allow perchlorate, a chemical found primarily in rocket fuel, to pollute America's drinking water supply. Perchlorate has been found to disrupt thyroid functions in humans, and can be particularly dangerous for infants and children. Yet, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will pass on an upcoming opportunity to set a new limit for drinking water, according to The Washington Post.

The Post obtained an early copy of EPA's "preliminary regulatory determination" on perchlorate. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been making significant edits to the document in order to downplay the negative health effects of the chemical, according to the Post. OMB has been reviewing the document since September 4.

From the Post:

The EPA document also finds that bottle-fed infants would be exposed to more than five times the level the National Academy of Sciences deemed safe -- 700 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day -- if parents mix formula with drinking water containing perchlorate levels of 15 ppb.

OMB officials said during the drafting process that there was "no need" for detailed data to flesh out a table suggesting that infants would be exposed to perchlorate levels above the academy's recommendation.

To determine safe levels of exposure, the administration opted not to use the academy's "reference dose," a formula that includes a tenfold safety factor to protect children and vulnerable populations, and instead used a computer model developed by the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology. EPA officials initially inserted language in the document calling this a "novel approach," but the OMB deleted that language.

This is not the first time OMB has meddled with EPA's efforts to regulate, or not regulate, perchlorate. The Bush White House and the Department of Defense — a major rocket fuel user and, subsequently, perchlorate polluter — have spent years working hard to make sure the Pentagon and defense contractors won't have to clean up their acts. More on that here.

When it comes to the environment, the Department of Defense is the nation's biggest polluter and, apparently, the government's biggest bully.

The Pentagon continues to ignore the instructions from another arm of government, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to clean up toxic sites at military bases. DOD officials are also intimidating state environmental agencies to back off clean-up efforts and are threatening to withhold federal funding Congress intended to go to those states, according to The Washington Post.

Yesterday, Wayne Arny, a deputy undersecretary for defense, told a Senate panel that he was unaware of any threats to withhold funding, and that he would put a stop to it.

But at the same hearing, "He said that the military is committed to protecting public health and the environment and merely differs with the EPA over cleanup procedures," according to the Post. "He said the Pentagon was proceeding with its own cleanup."

To that, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) shot back, "I don't want the EPA making decisions on war strategy, and I don't want you making decisions on environmental cleanup, because you have an interest in the easiest way out."

Boxer is correct: DOD's impartiality and commitment to the environment cannot, and should not, be counted on. DOD is the nation's biggest polluter. EPA says the three most controversial clean-up sites (Maguire Air Force Base in New Jersey, Fort Meade in Maryland, and Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida) may present "an imminent and substantial threat" to public health and the environment.

Moreover, the Pentagon is in violation of federal law. Again, the Post reports:

Although the law gives final say to EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson in cleanup disputes with other federal agencies, the Pentagon refuses to recognize that provision. Military officials have asked the Justice Department and the White House to intervene in the dispute.

In May, Arney wrote to OMB asking it to resolve the dispute between DOD and EPA. No public word yet on the views of the White House.

Yesterday, a House panel held an oversight hearing concerning Labor Secretary Elaine Chao's proposal to change the way the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration calculate on-the-job risks. Occupational health advocates and good government groups, such as OMB Watch, oppose the controversial rule. However, Bush officials are aggressively pushing the new policy through the rulemaking pipeline.

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee subcommittee on Workforce Protections, opened the hearing by airing her concerns with the speed of the rulemaking and the Labor Department's priorities:

I am troubled by the Agency's attempt to rush through this rule without a full consideration of its effect on the health and safety of the American worker. This proposed rule has without explanation leapfrogged ahead of many other worker protection standards that OSHA should have been working on for the last 8 years, including a standard for diacetyl, the long delayed silica standard, the long delayed beryllium standard, and the long delayed crane standard…[The rule] is being propelled forward at lightning speed.

Celeste Monforton, a health and safety advocate and a researcher from George Washington University, testified before the panel. She reminded committee members that OMB had tried to impose on regulatory agencies a politically-driven set of risk assessment mandates, but the National Academies of Science trashed the proposal forcing OMB to abandon it. Monforton pointed out that DOL's proposed rule ignores many of the important recommendations NAS articulated in its critique of the earlier OMB proposal.

Peg Seminario, director of safety and health for AFL-CIO, discussed the delay the proposed rule would cause. OMB Watch has complained that future administrations will have to grapple with these new requirements anytime they want to address new workplace hazards. But Seminario wisely noted that current rulemakings would also be affected:

The proposal doesn't apply only to future rules, it applies to those in process as well. We have three important health rules moving along at OSHA: one on silicia, one on beryllium, another on diacetyl…This rule requires that OSHA go back to square-one and start all over…This will result in dozens and dozens of unnecessary deaths.

DOL is only accepting public comment on the proposed rule for 30 days. (The standard comment period lasts 60 days.) Occupational health advocates want this rule abandoned altogether, but at the very least, they hope the comment period will be extended to allow for full examination.

A group of advocates, led by the Center for Progressive Reform, wrote to DOL requesting an extension. A DOL spokesperson said, "[W]e will evaluate their letter, along with the hundreds of other letters the department receives," according to BNA news service.

But another request for an extension may not be brushed off so easily. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) shined a spotlight on the controversy yesterday when he wrote to Chao requesting an extension:

In the interest of transparent governance, an informed process, and an informed public, I strongly urge you both to release the results of the review the Department commissioned and extend the comment period for another 30 days.

Today, the Food and Drug Administration debated the safety and potential need for regulation of bisphenol-A (BPA), a common chemical used in hard plastics and the lining of food cans. There has already been one surprise at the long-awaited meeting: today, a group of scientists revealed the results of a study linking BPA exposure to heart disease and diabetes.

The new study will throw more fuel on the debate over whether FDA should set strict limits on the use of BPA. Two other recent studies also indicate a potential risk. One of those was conducted by the National Toxicology Program which, like FDA, is housed within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

A few other studies have drawn a link between BPA exposure and adverse health effects. Lyndsey Layton at The Washington Post reports:

Scientists flagged possible health risks of BPA more than a decade ago. From 1997 to 2005, 116 studies of the compound were published. Of those funded by government, 90 percent showed evidence of a health effect linked to BPA.

The study released today is significant because it ties BPA exposure to human health effects, whereas most other studies look at effects on lab rats. This may prove to be a landmark study. The Post has more on the findings:

The research, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association by a team of British and American scientists, compared the health status of 1,455 men and women with the level of the chemical, also known as BPA, in their urine.

The researchers divided the subjects into four groups according to their BPA levels and found that those in the quartile with the highest concentrations were nearly three times more likely to have cardiovascular disease than those with the lowest levels, and 2.4 times more likely to have diabetes. Higher BPA levels were also associated with abnormal concentrations of three liver enzymes.

Although the scientists acknowledge certain limitations to their study and call for more research, shouldn't this evidence be enough to prod the federal government into action? Shouldn't regulators extend at least some protection to the public in the interim instead of waiting for more conclusive, but potentially more frightening, science to develop? Considering the grave consequences, uncertainty should not be used as an excuse to delay regulation.

And yet, for now, it will be. From the Associated Press:

"A margin of safety exists that is adequate to protect consumers, including infants and children, at the current levels of exposure," Laura Tarantino, a senior Food and Drug Administration scientist, told an expert panel…

Of course, the plastics industry will do everything in its power to make the debate even more contentious. Early reports on today's news are peppered with quotes from industry lobbyists attacking the scientific conclusions of the human health study.

According to the Post, "The North American Metal Packaging Alliance, which represents can manufacturers, dismissed the JAMA study article as an "unsubstantiated scientific leap" and called for additional research." According to AP, "The American Chemistry Council, an industry trade group, said the study is flawed, has substantial limitations and proves nothing."

CQPolitics.com is reporting that a widely-supported bill intended to reign in the tobacco industry will fail in the 110th Congress. The legislation would give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate cigarettes and other tobacco products. Currently, those products are among the few on the market subject to virtually no federal oversight.

The House version of the bill, H.R. 1108, passed with overwhelming support: 326-102. But Senate aides say the bill has little chance of coming to a vote this year before lawmakers quit making laws and go out on the campaign trail in a few weeks, according to the article.

Although the Senate calendar will likely be crowded in the next few weeks, Reg•Watch thinks the Democratic leadership should squeeze this bill in. Tobacco is always a hot-button issue, but the bill has broad support. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) sponsors the Senate version (S. 625), and 56 co-sponsors including 12 Republicans have jumped on board. If supporters can gin up three more yes votes, the bill could pass a cloture vote and sail to passage.

Even Phillip Morris, a major cigarette maker, supports the bill. (R.J. Reynolds is opposed.)

President Bush has threatened to veto the bill (his veto stamp is actually sponsored by R.J. Reynolds) but passage is still worth a shot. The bill passed the House by a veto proof margin and may stand a similar chance in the Senate.

The 110th Congress hasn't accomplished much, but this bill provides an opportunity to put one in the win column. Instead, it appears as though Democratic leadership will waste time voting on legislation that doesn't stand a chance, like a second economic stimulus package and misguided energy policy.

Evidence continues to mount linking exposure to a common plastics additive with developmental problems. Two recent studies of the chemical, bisphenol-A, indicate it may pose a danger to humans.

According to today's Washington Post, researchers at Yale Medical School exposed monkeys to bisphenol-A and "found that the chemical interfered with brain cell connections vital to memory, learning and mood." The researchers exposed the monkeys to levels of bisphenol-A "deemed safe for humans by the Environmental Protection Agency."

Yesterday, the National Toxicology Program, part of the Department of Health and Human Services, released its final report on the health effects of bisphenol-A. The report's findings are similar to those in the draft report NTP released in April.

According to the report, "The NTP has some concern for effects on the brain, behavior, and prostate gland in fetuses, infants, and children at current human exposures to bisphenol A."

"Some concern" is a designation that falls in the middle of a qualitative scale which the NTP uses. Other options include "serious concern" and "concern" for riskier substances, and "minimal concern" and "negligible concern" for less risky substances.

So the book on bisphenol-A and its human health effects is far from closed. More from the Post article:

"There remains considerable uncertainty whether the changes seen in the animal studies are directly applicable to humans, and whether they would result in clear adverse health effects," John R. Bucher, associate director of the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement. "But we have concluded that the possibility that BPA may affect human development cannot be dismissed."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) echoed that sentiment in a statement yesterday: "Clearly more research is needed, but in the meantime, we should err on the side of caution and keep this chemical out of children's products."

Congress may have to act, as the Bush administration has refused to. The Food and Drug Administration continues to insist bisphenol-A is safe at current exposure levels. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has remained mum on the issue, even though some retailers have pulled from their shelves products containing bisphenol-A. (Either or both could claim regulatory jurisdiction, because bisphenol-A can leach from the lining of cans into food and is common in a variety of children's products monitored by CPSC, including baby bottles.)

Congress should take advantage of the precedent it set in July when it banned phthalates, another type of plastics chemical, pending further study. The safety-first approach embodied in the phthalate ban would protect public health in the interim without condemning the substances to an eternal regulatory graveyard. The interim ban shifts the burden of proof onto phthalate manufacturers and users. If the safety of phthalates is proven, they're back on the market.

That's a revolutionary concept for policymakers, who usually wait until a definitive health risk is proven before pulling a substance from the market. This often allows harmful substances to cause health effects in people before preventative measures can be taken.

Congress should consider a similar approach with bisphenol-A, recognizing uncertainty exists but taking proactive steps to protect the public.

Following up on yesterday's post about the Bush Adminsitration's meddling in the labor market, here's another revealing example of how committed the administration is to the Free Market^TM ideology.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the government can prohibit meat packers from testing their animals for mad cow disease. Because the Agriculture Department tests only a small percentage of cows for the deadly disease, a Kansas meatpacker, Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, wanted to test all of its cows, but the government says it cannot. Larger meat companies worry that if Creekstone is allowed to perform the test and advertise its meat as safe, they could be forced to do the expensive test, too. The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said restricting the test was allowable.

The Bush Administration does not really believe that the government should be exorcised from all things economic. Rather, it takes an inconsistent approach in deciding when the appropriate time for market intervention is. Arguing that Americans should go without certain protections is just another method for businesses to increase their profits by trashing the environment, putting their workers at risk, and unleashing unsafe products on an unsuspecting public.

(h/t Stand Collender at Capital Gains and Games)

Image by Flickr user law_keven used under a Creative Commons license

The Department of Labor has officially proposed a rule which would change the way two agencies, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), calculate on-the-job risks. Labor Secretary Elaine Chao proposed the rule on Friday in spite of widespread opposition from occupational health advocates and some in Congress. (Click here to find more background on the controversy up to this point.)

Like the draft rule leaked to the media in July, the proposal would require OSHA and MSHA to issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for each and every occupational health standard they issue. Forcing OSHA and MSHA to give advanced notice of their intent to propose new health standards is completely unnecessary. The requirement would merely add another step to an already lengthy process.

The added delay may be the Bush administration's attempt to secure a legacy of inaction in the field of occupational health. (Bush's OSHA has issued only one on-the-job exposure standard in seven years — and that was done under court order.)

The good news is that Chao's office dropped an entire section that had proposed to require OSHA and MSHA to retool their assumptions on the length of a working life. If OSHA or MSHA determined the average worker only worked in an industry for 20 years, for example, it could use that figure to calculate an exposure threshold. However, since the adverse effects of exposure can compound over time, all the workers on the job for above the average time would receive less protection.

Unfortunately, the proposal still refers to the need to adjust the working life figure, leaving the door open for watered-down standards in the future. The proposed rule states, "Risk assessments shall utilize the best available evidence, and the latest available scientific data in the field, including industry-by-industry evidence relating to working life exposures."

That could mean loads more work for regulators at OSHA and MSHA who would have to compile industry specific data sets for every rulemaking. While future administrations concerned with occupational health could still choose to maximize protection, less compassionate administrations (the current one comes to mind) could use this clause as a pretext to write weaker rules.

Chao's office will only accept public comment on the proposal for 30 days. (The standard comment period lasts 60 days.) Like several other controversial proposals, the Bush administration is clearly trying to ram this rule through before its term expires.