restricted science


Jesse Springer/UCS

We Told OMB Why EPA’s So-Called Transparency Rule Is a Trap

, Lead science and policy analyst

Yesterday, our team at the Center for Science and Democracy met with the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to discuss EPA’s yet-to-be-released final rule, Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science. We participated in a 12866 meeting, which is an opportunity for stakeholders to meet with the White House’s regulatory review arm while they make final changes and decisions about agency rules. Read more >

Jesse Springer
Bookmark and Share

Jeff Vanuga/NRCS

EPA Chlorpyrifos Assessment: A Harbinger of Restricted Science Rule Havoc

, Lead science and policy analyst

For years, the EPA has been downplaying scientific findings in an attempt to continue the use of organophosphate insecticide, chlorpyrifos, which is a known neurotoxin and threatens the health of children, especially Latinx children who live near farmland or are the children of farmworkers. But now, it has chosen to inexplicably throw out studies from consideration as it approaches a critical registration decision. Read more >

Jeff Vanuga/NRCS
Bookmark and Share

EPA Should Cancel Plans to Restrict Science Once and For All

, Lead science and policy analyst

Today, UCS submitted our comment on the Environmental Protection Agency’s flawed strengthening transparency rule. In our view, this is a proposal beyond fixing. It rests upon an erroneous assumption that the EPA’s regulatory science is not sufficiently accessible to the public. The rule would create a path for opportunistic representatives from regulated industries to challenge the science the EPA uses, tie up the agency in reanalysis paralysis, and saddle external researchers with excess work to arbitrarily give access to underlying data. It has got to go. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

EPA Refused to Hold a Hearing on its Science Rule, So We Held It for Them

, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy

On March 18th, a date when many of us were already sheltering in place, the EPA announced a proposal to restrict how the agency uses science to protect public health. The EPA gave the public thirty days to provide comment. Held no virtual public hearings. In the middle of a pandemic. We urged the agency, repeatedly, to hold a virtual hearing on the proposal. Each time, they refused. So UCS decided that if the EPA would not do its job, someone would need to do it for them. EPA would get the feedback and the science advice whether they wanted to or not. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Timeline: 23 Years of Attempts to Restrict Public Health Science at EPA

, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy

The Environmental Protection Agency is advancing a broad proposal to restrict the use of science at the agency with no official public hearings and a limited sixty-day comment period, which ends on May 18. The rule is the culmination of 25 years of attempts to weaken the Clear Air Act and other critical public health laws. For the first two decades, these attempts came directly from industry and occasionally from Congress. But the attacks began from inside once polluter-friendly appointees took over the agency at the beginning of the Trump administration. They know they can’t win on the science, so they want to exclude it. Below is a timeline of attempts to restrict how science is used at EPA. If you see anything missing, drop me a note. Read more >

Bookmark and Share