Today, March 9, is the one-year anniversary of President Obama’s scientific integrity memo which instructed his staff to produce within 120 days recommendations for ensuring independence of federal scientists and limiting political interference in their work. 365 days later, we’re still waiting.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is critical of the delay. Francesca Grifo, director of UCS’s scientific integrity program, had this to say:

While the new administration has been generally supportive of scientific integrity values, it's moving too slowly to establish badly needed reforms. The current system still discourages scientists from communicating about their research results, for example. It still keeps the public in the dark about the scientific basis for policy decisions, and it still rewards staffers who keep quiet about political interference in science. 

The criteria Obama laid out in his March 9, 2009, memo are admirable: hiring and keeping qualified scientists; defining new policies to ensure integrity; using “well-established scientific processes” like peer review; disclosing scientific findings; ensuring that scientific integrity principles are being adhered to; and adopting additional policies like whistleblower protections.

But by failing to follow up with a concrete set of reforms, Obama and John Holdren – the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy who was tasked with developing recommendations – are sending a terrible message to those who believe scientific integrity ought to be a priority for this administration.

Interference in science reached new heights under President George W. Bush; but just because Bush is gone does not mean the problems go away too. As OMB Watch discusses in the latest issue of our e-newsletter The Watcher, a new report from the Project on Scientific Knowledge and Public Policy (SKAPP) proves that much work remains. SKAPP interviewed federal scientists during both the Bush and Obama administrations, and found that although there were a few bright spots in scientists' views of the changes that had occurred, a majority felt similar frustrations.

Couple this delay with the now year-plus delay on Obama’s effort to improve the regulatory process by writing a new executive order, and my outlook on the administration’s commitment to government reform is dimming.

Photo by Flickr user davidfntau. Used under a Creative Commons license.

A February Government Accountability Office report released today chides the Food and Drug Administration for failing to ensure the safety of common food additives. By law, manufacturers may assign additives a "generally recognized as safe," or GRAS, designation, a process that the FDA neither monitors nor verifies in most cases, according to the GAO.

Companies are supposed to make GRAS determinations based on the latest and greatest scientific evidence. Later, if new information turns up or if citizen petitions are filed with the FDA, additives can potentially be stripped of their GRAS designation.

One would expect that the FDA would keep tabs on GRAS substances. One would be wrong. Perversely, companies are not required to tell the FDA they have made a GRAS determination. (Many do notify the FDA voluntarily.) This makes it kind of difficult for the FDA to ensure food safety, according to GAO:

Once a GRAS substance has entered the marketplace, FDA would find it difficult to identify that substance as the potential source of a food safety problem, especially if FDA is unaware that the substance has been determined to be GRAS. Food products may contain numerous ingredients, including GRAS substances, making it difficult, if not impossible, for public health authorities to attribute a food safety problem to a specific GRAS substance. [Emphasis added.]

The report has many other specific criticisms of the FDA. It seems as though there are two overarching problems. First, regardless of whether the agency is aware that a GRAS determination has been made, the FDA tends to sit back and wait for new information to come to it. Second, when risk information does find its way to the FDA, the agency is slow to respond.

The report also delves into the issue of nanomaterials – tiny devices and products constructed of materials 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair. Although the FDA acknowledges that much remains unknown about nanomaterials (FDA has said it is not even comfortable defining nanotechnology), and even though some fear nanomaterials may have adverse effects on public health and the environment, manufacturers may designate nanomaterials as GRAS food additives. “Nevertheless, the decision to notify FDA of a GRAS substance, even one that contains engineered nanomaterials, is still voluntary,” the report says.

The GRAS problem is typical of the U.S.’s shoot-first-ask-questions-later approach to regulating. Safety is presumed, and regulation can only occur after evidence to the contrary reaches a critical mass.

GAO concluded the report by recommending several ways the FDA can sharpen oversight of GRAS determinations, including mandatory notification. “FDA generally agreed with the report’s findings and recommendations,” GAO said.

Image by Flickr user PunkJr, used under a Creative Commons license.

An article in yesterday’s New York Times details how the Supreme Court has shafted the American people when it comes to water quality. Because of two cases, “About 117 million Americans get their drinking water from sources fed by waters that are vulnerable to exclusion from the Clean Water Act, according to E.P.A. reports.”

The problem stems from the definition of the word “navigable,” the operative word in the Clean Water Act that describes the kinds of waters the EPA may regulate. In two cases, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers and Rapanos v. United States, the court limited the definition of “navigable waters” to preclude certain wetlands, seasonal streams, and isolated bodies of water, regardless of public exposure to these waters.

We’ve known for some time that the cases, one decided in 2001 and one decided in 2006, injected ambiguity into EPA’s interpretation of the act, but the Times’ article sheds additional light onto the breadth and impact the uncertainty has had on enforcement efforts:

More than 200 oil spill cases were delayed as of 2008, according to a memorandum written by an E.P.A. official and collected by Congressional investigators. And even as the number of facilities violating the Clean Water Act has steadily increased each year, E.P.A. judicial actions against major polluters have fallen by almost half since the Supreme Court rulings, according to an analysis of E.P.A. data by The New York Times. [emphasis added] 

Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) introduced last year the Clean Water Restoration Act to restore EPA’s authority. Basically, the bill would delete the word “navigable” from the original Clean Water Act. But in the United States Congress, successful passage of common sense legislation is a long shot. Similar bills were introduced in both the House and the Senate in 2002, 2003, 2005, and 2007. Feingold’s latest iteration is the first one in either chamber to pass the committee stage.

A member of an industry coalition opposing the act had this to say:

“If you can get Glenn Beck to say that government storm troopers are going to invade your property, farmers in the Midwest will light up their congressmen’s switchboards.” […] Mr. Beck, a conservative commentator on Fox News, spoke at length against the Clean Water Restoration Act in December. 

The right to clean water is a concept most of America has been on board with since at least the 1970s. Preventing dumping in wetlands, which in turn keeps pollution out of rivers and drinking water supplies, seems like a no-brainer. But when government has a chance to play a positive role in society, Beck, certain industry groups, some lawmakers, and the rest of the anti-government machine say “No!” – even to the no-brainers. Unfortunately, congressional Democrats, with their sizeable majorities, are perfectly willing to acquiesce.

A new report from the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice uncovers dozens of cases where ponds of toxic coal combustion waste have leaked into nearby wetlands, streams, and groundwater supplies.

Coal ash – sometimes referred to as fly ash, bottom ash, or, generally, coal combustion waste or residuals – is a byproduct of coal power plants captured from smoke stacks and stored in large retention ponds. The coal ash issue drew national attention in 2008 after a major spill sent the toxic goo cascading across parts of Tennessee.

The EIP/Earthjustice report makes the case that coal ash ponds are a serious hazard:

Coal-fired power plants generate nearly 140 million tons of fly ash, scrubber sludge, and other combustion wastes every year. These wastes contain some of the earth‘s most deadly pollutants, including arsenic, cadmium, lead, selenium, and other toxic metals that can cause cancer and neurological harm in humans and poison fish. This report brings to light 31 coal combustion waste sites that are known to have contaminated groundwater, wetlands, creeks, or rivers in 14 states. 

EPA pledged to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for coal ash ponds by the end of 2009 but has yet to do so. On Oct. 16, 2009, the agency sent a draft proposal to the White House Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); 132 days later, the rule is still under review. The draft is not available to the public, as is customary with OIRA reviews.

EPA regulation could help prevent the types of contamination detailed in the report, the environmental groups argue. “Yet, incredibly, ash and other coal combustion wastes are not subject to any federal regulations,” the report says. “The EPA promised to close this loophole by proposing new standards before the end of 2009. Instead, the EPA‘s draft rule is stalled at the Office of Management and Budget, where an avalanche of lobbyists hope it will stay buried.”

Since the beginning of the review period for the rule, OIRA has convened more than two dozen meetings between EPA and opponents of EPA’s regulation, mostly from industry. There have been five meetings with environmental groups.

One industry representative, Tom Adams of the American Coal Ash Association, told the Tennessean that OMB stayed in listening mode during the meetings: “In meetings with the federal Office of Management and Budget, Adams said he and others talked and answered questions, but the federal officials would not answer any questions themselves, and mostly took notes and listened. ‘They were doing a pretty good job of maintaining their poker faces,’ he said.”

By OIRA’s own rules, it has 90 days to review a draft rule. In consultation with the agency, OIRA may extend the review period once by 30 days (which it did on Jan. 14). The extension expired on Feb. 13.

OMB spokesperson Kenneth Baer told BNA news service (subscription), “All parties are working hard to resolve the remaining issues.”

Image courtesy of Brian Stansberry, Wikimedia Commons.