A scientific consulting group posted material on its website bragging about some of the accomplishments it had made on behalf of its clients, including the delay of a ban on a potentially harmful drug, according to a House investigation. ABC News reports:

The firm's efforts "led to an extensive process" and eventually "10 additional years of sales prior to the ultimate cancellation of the drug," according to a printout of the page provided to ABC News by the committee.

The consultant, the Weinberg Group, has since removed the material from its website. But the House Energy and Commerce Committee is demanding information related to the drug delay and ten other potential incidents of regulatory delay or scientific suppression. Currently, the committee does not know the name of the drug mentioned in the Weinberg Group's material or the name of the client Weinberg was working for.

The discovery of these scientific shenanigans is the latest development in an ongoing congressional investigation into the use of Bisphenol-A, a common chemical which has been linked to adverse health effects, in children's products. Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), chairman of the committee, has accused the Weinberg Group of using questionable scientific practices to downplay Bisphenol-A's effects.

(Thanks to the Center for Science in the Public Interest for pointing out this story.)

Have you ever seen the Seinfeld episode where a rental car agency tells Jerry that they don't have a car reserved for him even though he made a reservation? He scolds the agent saying, "You know how to take the reservation; you just don't know how to hold the reservation, and that's really the most important part of the reservation, the holding. Anybody can just take 'em."

Apparently, that's kind of how FDA approaches spinach inspections. The Washington Post reports:

Since 2001, nearly half of all federal inspections of facilities that package fresh spinach revealed serious sanitary problems, but the Food and Drug Administration did not take "meaningful" enforcement action, a House committee report released yesterday found…

The FDA did not refer any of the problem facilities to its internal enforcement authorities, nor did the agency send warning letters or seek injunctions.

The investigation, conducted by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, can be found here.

The White House has stopped EPA efforts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, according to an investigation of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee released today.

After the Bush administration had refused for six years to acknowledge global warming, the Supreme Court last April prodded EPA to consider regulating greenhouse gases (Massachusetts v. EPA). In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, committee chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) outlines how we got to where we are today:

• "In May 2007, the President signed an executive order directing EPA and other federal agencies to develop regulations to address greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. The President explicitly stated that this order was in response to Massachusetts v. EPA."
• "According to EPA staff, the proposal to regulate CO2 emissions from motor vehicles was 'about 300 pages;' and had 'extensive analysis about ... the costs and benefits.' "
• "The proposal developed by the career EPA staff called for significant reductions in CO2 emissions from motor vehicles."
• "Internal EPA documents indicate that you were scheduled to make decisions on the endangerment finding and the vehicle greenhouse gas rule as early as October 4,2007."
• "After you endorsed the finding that CO2 emissions endanger welfare, the proposed determination was submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget."

That's where things start getting fuzzy. Apparently, EPA and OMB have completely stopped working on the rule. EPA also sent the rule to the Department of Transportation (DOT). EPA had been working closely with DOT up until that point, according to EPA staff.

The White House is claiming the rule may no longer be necessary in light of fuel efficiency legislation Congress passed in December. That legislation requires DOT to tighten the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards - the federal standards for vehicle fuel efficiency. Waxman's letter quickly dispels such claims:

As a legal matter, the passage of provisions in the Energy Independence and Security Act requiring the Department of Transportation to strengthen federal CAFE standards does not affect EPA's legal obligation to regulate CO2 emissions...

Moreover, the Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA: "The fact that DOT's mandate to promote energy efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA's environmental responsibilities in no way licenses EPA to shirk its duty to protect the public 'health' and 'welfare.' "

Waxman is requesting from Johnson more information on why the rule was halted. Stay tuned to Reg•Watch for updates.

Sen. Ted Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has released a report on the Crandall Canyon Mine disaster. The collapse occurred in August 2007, trapping and killing six miners. Days later, three workers were killed during a rescue attempt.

The 75-page report contains lots of interesting yet disappointing information about Murray Energy, the mine's owner, and the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. One of the most disturbing is that MSHA disregarded the opinion of one of its analysts when it approved Murray Energy's plan to conduct retreat mining at Crandall Canyon.

Federal law requires MSHA approve plans for retreat mining — the controversial technique in which miners remove support pillars in order to intentionally collapse areas of the mine no longer in use.

The report says MSHA engineer Pete Del Duca reviewed Murray Energy's plan for Crandall Canyon and recommended MSHA officials reject it. The head of MSHA's district office for the area signed-off on the recommendation and notified the mine's manager.

After MSHA sent the letter, one of Del Duca's superiors, Billy Owens, met with a representative from Murray Energy. "After this conversation, Owens told Del Duca that his analysis was flawed in several respects." Del Duca told Kennedy's committee that no one asked him to reevaluate the retreat mining plan. Del Duca's analysis had been dismissed.

According to the report, "Del Duca's analysis was prescient." A mine collapse in March and the deadly collapse in August both occurred "beyond the points Del Duca predicted would be safe."

The Kennedy report and investigation exhibits can be downloaded here. The discussion of the Del Duca analysis begins on page 36.