OMB Responds to Criticism over Endocrine Program

White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Peter Orszag said Monday that OMB did not improperly interfere in an EPA program meant to test the hormone-disrupting effects of chemicals. Orszag said that EPA has complete control over the program.

In a letter [1]to Rep. Edward Markey (responding to a letter [2]Markey sent Oct. 22), Orszag said, “OMB does not question the scientific responsibilities and rigors put forward by the EPA.”

At issue is EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) which requires pesticide and other chemical manufacturers to test their products for adverse effects on the human endocrine system. EPA has developed a battery of tests designed to detect endocrine disrupting effects at low doses, but OMB urged the agency to also consider existing studies – a.k.a. other scientifically relevant information, or OSRI – “to the greatest extent possible.” (Click here for more background [3].)

Some in the scientific community fear that existing studies are not tailored to determine the health effects of these chemicals and that, if those studies exonerate the chemicals in question, EPA will not be able to ultimately write regulations needed to protect against the effects low dose exposure – regulations that the pesticide industry fears.

The forceful tone of Orszag’s response is a good sign. In the letter, he seeks to assure Markey that science, not politics, is leading the way:

Science is the ultimate determinant of EPA’s actions in these processes. I share your belief that EPA must continue to have a robust endocrine testing program, and I reiterate that OMB fully supports the EPA’s sole authority to make the scientific decisions related to this effort.

Still, when it comes to implementation of the EDSP, nothing has really changed. We won’t be able to gauge the impact of OMB’s role until manufacturers submit their initial responses to EPA test orders. (The first round [4]of deadlines are in February.) If industry submits existing studies in tandem with fresh data generated through the EPA-developed testing protocols, no big deal; but if industry is able to submit studies in lieu of new testing, using OMB’s past interjections as a cover, EPA may not get the data it needs to make critical decisions that protect the public from harmful substances.