Last year, many of us spoke out forcefully against a horrible EPA proposal that would allow the agency to ignore important studies when regulating, on the pretext of increasing transparency. Rather than using the extensive criticism to engage in a more thorough and appropriate process — or, as many of us recommended, scrap the proposal altogether — EPA has apparently made it more far-reaching and disastrous for public health.
Following a significant amendment, the Scientific Integrity Act passed the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 25-6.
Last year, the Trump administration EPA dismissed the Particulate Matter Review Panel, leaving the agency and its primary group of clean air advisors without the expertise they need to thoroughly update air pollution standards. The review panel’s scientists are so committed to their work that they’ve decided to meet and provide their crucial advice even without the federal government’s blessing.
We’ve become accustomed to having a president who lies blatantly, but leadership at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has reached a new low in enabling such duplicity—and has done so in a way that endangers health and safety.
This year has seen the usual flood of reports documenting unsafe, unhealthy and illegal conditions in global supply chains, but there is a growing body of research that highlight the underlying root cause of these conditions: the business model and sourcing practices of the international “brands” that sell us our clothing, electronics, sports shoes and so much more.
The “Scientific Integrity in Federal Agencies” hearing featured repeated reminders that scientific integrity is a bipartisan issue; that administrations from both parties have suppressed and distorted evidence; and that public health suffers when agencies disregard or sideline science.
Examples of federal agencies ignoring and suppressing science are alarmingly common these days, but Adam Federman’s investigation into the Department of the Interior’s actions regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is especially breathtaking.
The latest resource list on articles and reports describing unsafe and illegal working conditions in global supply chains producing consumer goods for the world economy. There are the usual tales of exploitation and woe, but also growing campaigns to recognize and end sexual harassment of women workers, and recognition that it is precisely the sourcing practices of the international “brands” that lead to abusive conditions in global supply chains.