|
News
& Analysis | REG•WATCH Blog | Press Room
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Linking Tobacco to Risk
Assessments Tobacco industries employed scientists
“to convince public health officials not that cigarettes were safe, but
that there was not yet sufficient evidence of their danger to justify
limiting places where tobacco could be smoked,” according to Environmental
and Occupational Health Professor David Michaels. Now, under laws like the
Data Quality Act, manufacturing doubt to keep harmful substances in the
air and on the market is common practice. In a great Op-Ed for the
Baltimore Sun, Michaels links the historic
example of the tobacco industry manufacturing uncertainty to keep people
smoking with OMB’s new bulletin on risk assessment. Michaels explains how
OMB’s onerous new risk assessment guidelines for agencies create another
way to use uncertainty as an excuse to not regulate:
Except when political appointees override the
judgment of career federal scientists (as when a White House staffer
rewrote an Environmental Protection Agency report on global warming to
highlight scientific uncertainty), the nonpolitical staff at regulatory
agencies can generally see through these crude efforts to create doubt.
And Congress has refused to pass the Bush administration's attempts,
such as the initiative with the Orwellian name "Clear Skies," to weaken
environmental laws.
Clearly frustrated, the White House is making a run
around Congress to change the way the agencies conduct risk assessments,
the studies that form the basis for health protections. The Office of
Management and Budget has proposed mandatory "guidelines" that would
require agencies to conduct impossibly comprehensive risk assessments
before issuing scientific or technical documents, including the rules
polluters have to follow.
What appears at first blush to be good government reform
is in fact a backdoor attempt to undermine existing environmental laws.
If this is successful, the uncertainty manufactured by polluters will be
written into federal risk assessments, providing the justification to
weaken public health protection.
Posted by Genevieve
Smith |