Last week, EPA held a hearing about its proposed rule to restrict the research it can use in regulating, and scores of public health advocates attended to speak out against it.
A proposed EPA rule that would sharply restrict the studies the agency can use when regulating faces pushback from the agency’s Science Advisory Board and a bipartisan group of more than 100 Congress members. The agency has extended the comment period and scheduled a hearing, but still seems determined to move ahead with a deeply flawed rule.
Last week, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt announced a proposed rule that would dramatically shrink the pool of high-quality evidence EPA can use in regulations. Pruitt claims the rule will advance transparency, but it will really just make it harder to protect public health.
NIH’s National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) has funded a randomized trial comparing moderate alcohol consumption and abstention — but most of the money for the study is from the alcohol industry. Recent revelations about early communications between scientists and beverage companies make it harder to have full confidence in the study’s eventual findings.
Advice from a long-time public servant and a new guide from nonprofit groups encourage federal employees to take notes about things that concern them.
It’s unusual for a notice of proposed rulemaking to not include any quantitative analysis. Did the Trump administration not want to acknowledge that their proposal could lead to workers losing billions of dollars in tips each year?
Recent pieces address different outcomes for those who face potentially fatal conditions, treating women’s lives as bargaining chips, the fate of science — and one specific analysis of tipped workers’ income — under the Trump administration, and more.
A new analysis from the Union of Concerned Scientists examines the functions of federal science advisory committees over the past year and reports “an unprecedented level of stalled and disbanded scientific advisory committees, cancelled meetings, and dismissed experts” – with profound consequences for our safety and health.
Sanitation workers in the meatpacking industry face life-threatening dangers on the job; number of OSHA inspectors down under Trump; truckers feel the pressure to work while sleep-deprived; and despite increased demand for sexual harassment training, there’s little evidence it actually works.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled late last month to uphold an OSHA rule to protect 2.3 million workers who are exposed to respirable crystalline silica. A three judge panel was not convinced by any of the arguments to reject the OSHA rule that were made by attorneys for the National Association of Home Builders, American Foundry Society, and other industry groups. The judges’ 60-page opinion had this bottom line: “We reject all of Industry’s challenges.”