ALERT/// White House wants control of `disaster in the making' news

[Guest guest]

Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:36 PM

ALERT/// White House wants control of `disaster in the making' news

 

 

> Read this over carefully and slowly so you understand what just happened

> here. This would give the Whitehouse the power to hide information

> concerning the Public's health and well being at any given time. Hidden

> under the guise of " protecting us "

>

> This must not be allowed to pass.

>

> Why can't the Public be told the WHOLE TRUTH of any situation and let them

> decide. One by one the Rights of citizens of this country are being taken

> away, sometimes with knowledge, but lately, all done in SECRET....

> WHY!!!!!!!

>

>

> -

> : Tuesday, January 13, 2004 5:55 PM

> White House wants control of `disaster in the making' news

>

>

> > KRT Wire | 01/12/2004 | ^White House seeking control over health, safety

> > declarations<

> > Posted on Mon, Jan. 12, 2004

> > http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/7692846.htm

> >

> > White House seeking control over health, safety declarations

> >

> > By Andrew Schneider

> > St. Louis Post-Dispatch

> >

> > (KRT) - WASHINGTON - Under a new proposal, the White House would decide

> what

> > and when the public would be told about an outbreak of mad cow disease,

an

> > anthrax release, a nuclear plant accident or any other crisis.

> > The White House Office Management and Budget is trying to gain final

> control

> > over release of emergency declarations from the federal agencies

> responsible

> > for public health, safety and the environment.

> > The OMB also wants to manage scientific and technical evaluations -

known

> as

> > peer reviews - of all major government rules, plans, proposed

regulations

> > and pronouncements.

> > Currently, each federal agency controls its emergency notifications and

> peer

> > review of its projects.

> > But the OMB says peer review policies in various agencies vary

> dramatically.

> > And a senior OMB official says his office has been ordered by Congress

to

> > take " a greater role in evaluating what the agencies do. "

> > On Friday, a nonpartisan group of 20 former top agency officials sent a

> > letter to the OMB asking the White House watchdog agency to withdraw its

> > proposal, saying it " could damage the federal system for protecting

public

> > health and the environment. "

> > One of the signers, David Michaels, said: " It goes beyond just having

the

> > White House involved in picking industry favorites to evaluate

government

> > science. Under this proposal, the carefully crafted process used by the

> > government to notify the public of an imminent danger is going to first

> have

> > to be signed off by someone weighing the political hazards. "

> > Michaels, a former assistant secretary for environment, safety and

health

> at

> > the Department of Energy, is now a research professor at George

Washington

> > University's School of Public Health. He added: " OMB is not a science

> > agency. The ramifications of it attempting to insert itself into a

> > time-proven system of having the most knowledgeable scientists available

> > evaluate proposed policy or regulations is a disaster in the making. "

> > In addition to Michaels, the letter is signed by two former

Environmental

> > Protection Agency administrators, a former secretary of labor, two

former

> > heads of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, a former

> > assistant labor secretary in charge of mine safety and health, and 13

> other

> > former senior officials of both political parties.

> > The letter, obtained by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, referred to a Nov.

18

> > conference sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences on the OMB's

> plan.

> > " Speaker after speaker warned that implementation of this proposal would

> > lead to increased costs and delays in disseminating information to the

> > public and in promulgating health, safety, environmental and other

> > regulations, while potentially damaging the existing system of peer

> review, "

> > the letter said.

> > ---

> > John Graham, administrator of the OMB's Office of Information and

> Regulatory

> > Affairs, said the just-concluded public comment period has been

> > constructive.

> > " We will be using these comments to prepare a final peer review policy

> that

> > is as objective and workable as possible, " Graham said.

> > Federal agencies have until Thursday to submit comments on what they

think

> > about having their authority stripped.

> > There is wide concern among those in the science offices at the EPA and

> > Occupational Safety and Health Administration that their agencies'

> responses

> > will be based more on political realities than on the genuine merits of

> the

> > OMB's proposal.

> > Even those critical of the OMB's plan agree with the need for peer

review.

> > The practice, which has been accepted for decades, demands that before

> > scientific, medical or technical findings can be determined to be

> effective

> > and safe for use or published in professional journals, they must be

> > evaluated for merit by other specialists in the same field.

> > Industry has not been shy about denouncing government's system of peer

> > review as unfair, especially when regulators determined that their

> > pharmaceutical product, chemical or process must be tightly controlled

> > because of possible danger to the public or environment. And the White

> House

> > has been equally open about its desire to reduce the regulatory burden

on

> > industry.

> > Graham said revising peer review " is a major priority for this

> > administration. "

> > The OMB was created in 1970 to evaluate all agency budget, policy,

> > legislative, regulatory and management issues on behalf of the

president.

> > ---

> > Many in the scientific community worry that the OMB's selection process

> for

> > reviewers will taint impartiality.

> > " The proposed peer review selection criteria would severely and

> > unnecessarily restrict an agency's access to the most qualified

> expertise, "

> > said Dr. Jordan Cohen, president of the Association of American Medical

> > Colleges.

> > In lengthy comments to the OMB, Cohen and a co-signer, Robert Wells,

> > president of the 60,000-member Federation of American Societies for

> > Experimental Biology, also questioned the OMB's proposed involvement in

> > screening emergency public health announcements.

> > They offered examples of recent events from one agency - the Food and

Drug

> > Administration - where a delay caused by the OMB could have been

> dangerous.

> > Among them:

> > An emergency termination of a clinical trial of anti-arrhythmic drugs

> " that

> > was not beneficial, but in fact dangerous. "

> > An announcement that hormone replacement therapy for post-menopausal

women

> > was causing adverse effects.

> > Last October's halting of a clinical trial of a cancer drug to reduce

the

> > rate of breast cancer recurrence.

> > " We see no public benefit from mandating an additional layer of OMB

> > interposition, peer review and public comments that, at best, would have

> > delayed these announcements for untold months, " said the comments from

the

> > groups, which represent more than 100 medical and scientific societies.

> > Michael Taylor, former deputy commissioner at the FDA under the first

Bush

> > administration, warned that the OMB's involvement in the dissemination

of

> > information on " imminent health hazards " is dangerous.

> > Taylor cited the severe November hepatitis outbreak from contaminated

> green

> > onions at a Mexican fast food restaurant near Pittsburgh.

> > " OMB's proposal says it gets to weigh in on any agency statement that

> would

> > have a significant impact on an industry. Any FDA warning or recall

would

> > have that nationwide impact. So should the FDA commissioner have to go

to

> > John Graham for permission to warn people about the possible danger from

> > tainted green onions? " Taylor asked.

> > " That's what the plan calls for, and it's not just FDA, it's all

agencies

> > involved with health and safety. "

> > " Speed is often essential, " Taylor said. " If you discover that a heart

> valve

> > is defective and killing people and can't issue a recall until the White

> > House has weighed in on the issue, people could die. "

> > ---

> > Graham is aware of the controversy.

> > " We understand that concerns have been raised about how the proposed

> (plan)

> > addresses emergencies, " said the administrator, who added that his

> > department's view on the issue will be explained in a final version of

the

> > plan.

> > The OMB's actions are needed, according to a senior OMB official,

because

> > " federal agencies have inconsistent peer review policies. "

> > Some, like the Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Department of

Agriculture,

> > have no formal peer review policy. But others such as the EPA and FDA

have

> > detailed policies for the mandatory evaluations, he said.

> > " Even agencies that have peer review polices have not been found to

> > implement them consistently, " the official said.

> > The National Resources Defense Council calls the OMB's effort a blatant

> end

> > run to " achieve what could not be achieved through the intense campaigns

> to

> > lobby to Congress to weaken pollution and safety standards. " So said

> > Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist with the 1 million-member

environmental

> > organization.

> > " The integrity of the science used to support regulatory decisions would

> be

> > compromised, perhaps beyond repair, " Sass said.

> > But the OMB says it has been ordered by Congress to take a greater role

in

> > evaluating what the agencies do.

> > " Congress, in the Information Quality Law, required OMB to engage in

> > oversight of the information quality activities of federal agencies, "

the

> > senior OMB official said. " Peer review is one of the critical activities

> > agencies use to assure quality control of information during

> > pre-dissemination review. "

> > ---

> > The OMB's attempt to take control of the release of emergency

information

> > surprises even its critics.

> > There were headlines across the country when the EPA's inspector general

> > confirmed that the White House's counsel on environmental quality had

> forced

> > downplaying of actual hazards from the collapse of the World Trade

Center

> > buildings. And the OMB was faulted in congressional hearings for

> preventing

> > the EPA from declaring a public health emergency regarding asbestos

> > contamination in Libby, Mont.

> > " Incredibly, OMB's response to this widespread criticism about political

> > interference in public health decisions is to come right out and

> explicitly

> > propose to take authority over release of emergency information away

from

> > health, safety and environmental officials and transfer it into the

hands "

> > of John Graham, said Winifred De Palma, regulatory affairs counsel for

> > Public Citizen.

> > The consumer advocacy organization was founded by Ralph Nader in 1971.

> > " OMB has no statutory or other express legal authority to impose this

type

> > of control on the agencies, " De Palma said. " If the plan is implemented,

> it

> > will mean that political considerations, and not public health, will be

> the

> > administration's primary concern in the deciding whether to release

health

> > and safety information to the public in emergency situations. "

> > ---

> > In public statements on its proposal, the OMB did not cite specific

cases

> > where the existing peer review didn't work.

> > The agency referred reporters to the comments of the American Chemical

> > Council, which listed six examples where it said EPA's peer review of

> > certain chemicals were flawed. For example, it criticized a 2000 EPA

> > evaluation specifying hazards of diisononyl phthalate, a plasticiser

used

> in

> > soft vinyl children's products.

> > The EPA evaluation " ignored the primate data indicating that the effects

> > seen at high doses in rodents do not occur in primates, " the council

> wrote.

> > Since his confirmation, Graham, who has a doctorate from Harvard, has

been

> a

> > target for criticism from Public Citizen and other interest groups

worried

> > about his strong ties to industry.

> > Before joining the Bush administration, Graham headed the Harvard Center

> for

> > Risk Analysis. Its research, funded mostly by corporations, is often

> widely

> > praised by industry and denounced by some public interest groups. Graham

> has

> > written or edited books on the problems of government peer review.

> > Two of Graham's own studies on the safety of cell phones and driving and

> the

> > value of automotive air bags for children are called scientific

whitewash

> by

> > some critics and praised as an unbiased evaluation by those in the

> > automotive and cell phone industry.

> > " Although peer review does take time and hard work, it ultimately

> > strengthens public health and environmental protection by better

ensuring

> > that rules will have the intended effect and are legally sound, " said

> > Graham, explaining the value of the proposal.

> > ---

> > © 2004, St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

> > Visit the Post-Dispatch on the World Wide Web at http://www.stltoday.com

> >

> >

>