Industry Test-Fires New Secrecy Weapon
by Joseph A. Davis

Environmentalists’ concerns about anti-regulatory uses of the new
federal Data Quality Act heightened quickly after it took effect in
November 2002, and industry groups began using it to suppress availability
of health information release of which they say could threaten
profits.

The Act - a few lines slipped quietly into the fiscal 2001 appropriations
bill - allows affected parties to challenge the accuracy of
information and demand a "correction.

Environmental journalists, like others, value accuracy. But some fear
the Data Quality Act could be applied in ways that would make it
hard for reporters who depend on public or published government
information sources to do their jobs.

If anyone thought the Data Quality Act would be used just by bean
counters to quibble over typos and misplaced decimals, they have
already been proven wrong. Major industry groups have signaled that
they plan to use it to replace the scientific peer-review process and withhold
from release information about risks to public health.

If trends hold, it may become a central battleground for a reshaping
or repeal of environmental laws and regulations. It may also
become a strategic key in re-arguing central policy debates over the
government’s role in informing people about potential health risks
presented by industry, agriculture, and others.

A case in point was a petition filed November 25, 2002, by the
Center for Regulatory Effectiveness (CRE), a specialized lobbying/
law firm, on behalf of the Kansas Corn Growers Association and the
Triazine Network. It challenged EPA’s published reference to a
scientific study suggesting that atrazine, a weed-killer used widely
on corn and soybeans in the Midwest, had endocrine-disrupting
effects on frogs. (Petition: http://www.thecre.com/pdf/petitionatrazine2B.
pdf)

Atrazine, among the nation’s most widely used herbicide, finds
its way into the drinking water of millions of Midwesterners in trace
quantities as it runs from fields or seeps into groundwater. According
to EPA, atrazine has a number of acute and chronic harmful
health effects (including cancer) on people who ingest it in large
enough quantities or over a long enough period of time. In 1992,
EPA set a regulatory limit (mcl) of 3 parts per billion of atrazine in
drinking water, on a yearly average, requiring utilities to notify the
public via newspapers, radio, and TV if their drinking water exceeded
that level. (EPA Fact Sheet: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/
dwh/c-soc/atrazine.html)

There has been considerable study and debate among scientists
over atrazine’s health effects. After EPA had originally classified it
as a likely human carcinogen, an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel recommended
in June 2000 that atrazine be reclassified as "not likely"
to be a human carcinogen on the grounds that there was "not enough
information" to classify it as a likely carcinogen.

But industry, it seemed, had been working hard to ensure that
there also was not enough information.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) has charged
that Swiss-owned Syngenta, the largest atrazine manufacturer, was
withholding two key studies from EPA at the time that the science
panel was debating atrazine’s status. One was an internal study tracking
excess prostate cancers among atrazine workers at Syngenta’s
St. Gabriel, Louisiana, production plant. The other was a Syngentafunded
study of atrazine-related frog deformities by a Berkeley professor,
Tyrone Hayes. Hayes eventually finished the work without
Syngenta funds and published the results in the April 16, 2002, edition
of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. (NRDC
Release: http://www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/natrazine.asp; Hayes
Article: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/8/5476

The CRE challenge is not an abstract or purely scientific one.
Atrazine, like many other pesticides, is currently before EPA for reregistration,
and the outcome of this process depends on formal assessments
of health risks. CRE challenged EPA’s dissemination of a
portion of its official Environmental Risk Assessment for Atrazine.

It specifically called into question Hayes’ study on frogs. Under a
consent decree with NRDC, EPA must issue an interim registration
decision on atrazine in January 2003.

But the CRE challenge also has a broader sweep: It asserts that
the government may neither publish nor use scientific studies until
government validation protocols are finalized. It would substitute
for the prevailing standard of independent peer review by the scientific
community a process controlled by the White House Office of
Management and Budget.

Moreover, restating an old argument in a long-running environmental
policy debate, it attempts to shift the burden of proof from
those producing potentially harmful products to those trying to protect
public health. In the name of "data quality," it argues that any
pesticide that cannot be proven toxic beyond the toughest standard
of doubt must be officially declared entirely safe.

CRE’s move has major potential as a precedent. CRE head Jim
Tozzi, for years a Washington environmental lobbyist after having
long served as head of OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, was also a major behind-the-scenes architect of the Data
Quality Act, which now places major control over data quality decisions
with OMB.

Tozzi has signaled his intent to use Data Quality as a policy weapon
by, among other things, his early call for withdrawal - un-publishing
- of the U.S. National Assessment on climate change completed
during the late Clinton years.

In another action filed November 6, 2002, just days after the Data
Quality Act took effect, CRE challenged the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration’s collection from car-makers of customer
complaints of vehicle defects that could result in recalls.

And at a November 20, 2002, public meeting of the Chemical
Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB), lawyers for Georgia-
Pacific and the American Forest and Paper Association threatened a
data-quality challenge to the board’s report on a hydrogen sulfide
leak that killed two at a Georgia-Pacific mill in Pennington, Alabama.

The board is supposed to provide rigorous independent chemical
accident investigations that, at least in theory, are immune from
politics, like those of the National Transportation Safety Board which
investigates airplane accidents.

The CSB has no regulatory authority. But its findings in the Georgia-
Pacific case will be influential because the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration is poised to begin regulating a new class
of "reactive," chemicals, of which hydrogen sulfide is an example.
Reactive chemicals may pose risks not only to workers, but also to
surrounding communities.