Researchers Slam New EPA Rule That Regulates Public-Health Studies
The Trump administration said the changes, which require the release of raw data, are aimed at increasing transparency. But the former director of the EPA's Science Board criticized the move, saying, "It sounds good on the surface. But this is a bold attempt to get science out of the way so special interests can do what they want.”
AP:
A Final EPA Rollback Under Trump Curbs Use Of Health Studies
The Environmental Protection Agency has completed one of its last major rollbacks under the Trump administration, changing how it considers evidence of harm from pollutants in a way that opponents say could cripple future public-health regulation. ... The new rule would require the release of raw data from public-health studies whose findings the EPA uses in determining the danger of an air pollutant, toxic chemical or other threat. Big public-health studies that studied the anonymized results of countless people have been instrumental in setting limits on toxic substances, including in some of the nation’s most important clean-air protections. (Knickmeyer, 1/5)
The Wall Street Journal:
EPA To Give Preference To Scientific Studies That Disclose Data
Administrator Andrew Wheeler said the changes are aimed at increasing transparency so that the public has a chance to scrutinize findings that underlie major regulations. “By shining light on the science we use in decisions, we are helping to restore trust in government,” Mr. Wheeler wrote in a commentary published by The Wall Street Journal late Monday. “We want the EPA to be able to say, ‘you can check our work.’” (Puko, 1/5)
The Washington Post:
EPA Finalizes Scientific Transparency Rule Limiting Which Studies Can Be Used To Protect Public Health
Many of the nation’s leading researchers and academic organizations, however, argue that the criteria will actually restrict the EPA from using some of the most consequential research on human subjects because it often includes confidential medical records and other proprietary data that cannot be released due to privacy concerns. “The people pushing it are claiming it’s in the interest of science, but the entire independent science world says it’s not,” said Chris Zarba, a former director of the EPA’s Science Advisory Board who retired in 2018 after nearly four decades at the agency. “It sounds good on the surface. But this is a bold attempt to get science out of the way so special interests can do what they want.” (Eilperin an Dennis, 1/4)
The New York Times:
A Plan Made To Shield Big Tobacco From Facts Is Now E.P.A. Policy
Nearly a quarter century ago, a team of tobacco industry consultants outlined a plan to create “explicit procedural hurdles” for the Environmental Protection Agency to clear before it could use science to address the health impacts of smoking. President Trump’s E.P.A. embedded parts of that strategy into federal environmental policy on Monday when it completed a new regulation that favors certain kinds of scientific research over others in the drafting of public health rules. (Friedman, 1/4)
