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

EPA Announces Proposed Smog Standard

House Legislation Would Force Regulatory Review

House Bills Address Mining Health and Safety Shortfalls

Two stories today illustrate a dangerous trend which will likely get worse before it gets better: the importation of dangerous products from China.

Much like America during the Industrial Revolution, China's economy is making great strides and the global economy is benefiting. But, also much like America, China's economic growth is outpacing government regulation and oversight.

The difference is — because rapid globalization is eroding trade barriers — dangerous products are easily spilling onto foreign shores.

One story indicates China is on an improving path toward regulatory responsibility. The lede in a New York Times article claims Chinese regulators have "recently closed 180 food plants and that inspectors had uncovered more than 23,000 food safety violations."

However, the other story, also covered by the Times, shows how far away the end of the path may be. A Chinese tire manufacturer pawned off hundreds of thousands of defective tires on an American importer. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is now aware of the defect, and the importer — which deserves its own share of the blame — will recall the tires.

If this trend continues, safety may grow as a commodity on the world market. Industry lobbyists who claim American businesses cannot afford federal regulation will begin to find their argument holds even less water than it does currently.

For the most part, America's advanced regulatory system ensures safe and reliable consumer products. America can't match the cheapness or enormity of the Chinese workforce, but we can be a leader in safety. Ultimately, American business can't afford not to have a strong and responsive regulatory system.

Last week, Reg•Watch blogged about a House bill which would force the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to set a standard for workers exposed to diacetyl. Diacetyl is a component of the artificial butter flavoring found in microwave popcorn. Exposure can cause a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans which reduces quality of life and causes premature mortality. Unfortunately, the disease has acquired the moniker "popcorn workers lung."

Today, the House Education and Labor Committee reported the bill to the House floor. Kudos to lead sponsor Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) and the committee for taking decisive action on this issue. (Thanks to the Pump Handle blog for pointing this out.)

With Congress set to examine corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) reform this summer, the debate over vehicle fuel efficiency stringency is heating up.

Because the CAFE standard has not been strengthened since its inception over three decades ago, you would think the country would be able to get behind a stricter standard. Considering technological improvements and the gathering threat of global climate change, America would be foolish to operate with such an antiquated standard.

If you thought that, you'd be wrong. One of the biggest arguments CAFE-haters trot out is that fuel economy standards encourage automakers to produce lighter vehicles which are in turn less safe which leads to a higher rate of vehicle-crash fatalities. (For example, see this bit of nonsense from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.)

Now, a study by the International Council on Clean Transportation has fully debunked that myth. According to a press release:

The authors conclude that existing technology options can improve light-duty vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent over the next 10 years without reducing the weight or size of vehicles. Any extra cost associated with the auto-manufacturing changes would be more than offset by savings generated by more fuel-efficient vehicles.

The bottom line: we can achieve better fuel efficiency without sacrificing safety. According to the study, "There are a wide variety of technologies and approaches available to advance vehicle fuel economy that have no effect on vehicle safety."

The Department of Homeland Security recently issued interim regulations on chemical plant security which prevent states from adopting standards stricter than those prescribed by DHS. Yesterday, the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously passed the appropriations bill for DHS. The bill includes language which would restore the states' rights.

The efforts of the Appropriations Committee follow up on a failed attempt in May to address the issue during the Senate vote on the Iraq supplemental. That attempt was beaten back by the National Manufacturers Association.

As our friends at the OMB Watch Budget Blog pointed out earlier this week, President Bush threatened to veto the House DHS appropriations bill — $36.3 billion — for being "irresponsible and excessive." The president's request is $34.2 billion.

The Senate bill proposes funding of $37.6 billion which will likely draw a similar veto threat. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is unsure if he will bring the bill to the floor, according to BNA news service (subscription).

Regardless of what happens with all this appropriations wrangling, Congress needs to restore the rights of the states to promulgate chemical security standards as they see fit in order to protect the public.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has been abysmal in promulgating standards during the Bush administration. One of the regulatory casualties of OSHA's inaction is delayed action on diacetyl exposure. Diacetyl is a component of the artificial butter flavoring found in microwave popcorn. Exposure can cause a lung disease called bronchiolitis obliterans which reduces quality of life and causes premature mortality. Unfortunately, the disease has acquired the moniker "popcorn workers lung."

Growing tired of OSHA's delay, Congress is taking action. Democrats on the House Education and Labor Committee have introduced a bill which would require OSHA to set an exposure standard within 90 days of the bill becoming law.

The Pump Handle blog has further detailed the issue. Check it out here.

This week, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin tackling its version of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) reauthorization/FDA reform bill the Senate passed in early May.

The House has already uncovered disturbing (but not surprising) information about the bill. FDA drafted and provided to Congress the basis for the Senate bill. However, FDA apparently had a lot of help from the pharmaceutical industry in composing the legislative language.

According to a report in today's Washington Post:

The Food and Drug Administration met 112 times with pharmaceutical industry representatives and five times with consumer and patient groups over 15 months to develop proposed legislation, according to two lawmakers who said the agency is "inappropriately close" to the companies it regulates.

Those two lawmakers — Reps. Bart Stupak (D-MI) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) — and the rest of the committee would be wise to examine PDUFA reauthorization with a cautious eye. The PDUFA program allows FDA to charge drug makers for drug approvals, but the money comes with strings attached. The subsequent financial ties blur the line between public regulators and the regulated community.

The Washington Post recaps yesterday's House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing on the safety of the diabetes drug Avandia manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. According to the article, a New England Journal of Medicine analysis "concluded that Avandia increases the risk of heart attack by 43 percent." However, FDA is "still analyzing conflicting data" about the drug's effects.

There may not be consensus on the exact side effects of Avandia, but one thing is for sure: Avandia has been on the market for years and no one — not FDA, GlaxoSmithKline, Congress, or the public — is confident of its safety.

Such obvious lapses beg a solution. The FDA reform bill passed by the Senate last month would expand FDA's ability to force drug makers to conduct prompt post-market safety studies. Some aspects of the bill (expanding the agency's user-fee program) are problematic, but this provision is a must pass.

Similar drug safety problems are bound to occur in the future. But there is no excuse for being unsure of a drug's side effects for so long. Drug makers and the FDA should stop trying to cover their mistakes. The American people are smarter than they think. Knowledge breeds confidence. FDA should be in the business of providing the public with knowledge.

EPA is considering appointing Dennis C. Paustenbach to the asbestos panel of its Science Advisory Board. According to the Environmental Working Group (EWG), Paustenbach has made a career out of defending corporations in asbestos exposure suits.

Agency panels and committees, such as EPA's Science Advisory Board, are important tools for regulatory decision-makers. Panels are supposed to consist of impartial experts who can provide valuable scientific and technical advice.

EPA created the asbestos panel to aid the agency in maintaining risk assessments and exposure standards consistent with the most up-to-date scientific data and technological feasibility. Unfortunately, it appears Paustenbach's expertise is in downplaying the risks of asbestos exposure and advocating for less protective federal standards.

EWG has sent a letter to EPA further detailing their opinion as to why Paustenbach is a bad choice. To read the letter, click here.