Changes

[[Lisa Jackson]] is the EPA administrator under the [[Obama administration]]. Under [[Christine Todd Whitman]] of the [[George W. Bush]] 's administration, it the agency became a controversial and politicized agency, due in part to that administration's the rejection of the [[Kyoto Protocol]]. Also, and the cover up of the dangers of [[asbestos]] and [[e-waste]] in dust in the air dangers in Manhattan after [[September 11, 2001]]. This has led to widespread criticism of administration the handling of [[public health]] concerns arising from [[terrorism]], and as well as the role of the U.S. federal government generallyin general. See also [[EPA's Revolving Door]].

==Public relations tacticsBudget==On April 8, 2011, the Senate made a budget deal that cut $1.6 billion, or 16 percent, of the EPA's budget. Lawmakers from Western states also included a rider allowing states to de-list wolves from the endangered species list, the first time an animal was de-listed for political rather than scientific reasons.<ref>Brian Merchant, [http://www.alternet.org/environment/150592/what_crucial_environment_and_health_programs_were_sacrificed_in_the_budget "What Crucial Environment and Health Programs Were Sacrificed in the Budget?"] AlterNet, April 13, 2011.</ref> ==Greenhouse gas issues (subsection)== For greenhouse gas regulations, see also [[EPA greenhouse gas issues]]. ==Coal issues (subsection)== For coal waste & other coal regulations, see also [[EPA coal issues]]. ==Environmental toxins & pollution== ===Industry funded chemical study===In 2004, the [[Washington Post]] reported that the EPA had accepted two million dollars from the [[American Chemistry Council]] (ACC), to "fund a study exploring the impact of pesticides and household chemicals on young children." Not too surprisingly, the inappropriateness of accepting funding from chemical interests and obvious conflict of interests issues, prompted an "outcry from environmentalists".The "Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study" (CHEERS), does not mark the first time the EPA has accepted chemical industry funding to conduct "research". The [[Clinton administration]] signed similar agreements. However, it does represent the largest amount for a chemical trade group. The ACC represents about 135 manufacturers and spends $20 million a year on research.<ref>Juliet Eilperin, "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62569-2004Oct25.html Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study: Effect of Substances on Children Probed]," [[Washington Post]], October 26, 2004</ref> ===EPA proposal for less reporting of chemical toxins===Under a 2005 EPA proposal, industrial companies would be freed from reporting most chemical releases of less than 5,000 pounds, up from 500 pounds under current law. Factories, power plants, refineries and other sources of pollution would also report their releases every other year, as opposed to the previous yearly reporting requirements.<ref>Michael Hawthorne, [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280147sep28,1,5979839.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed "EPA tells polluters it wants less data. Rule changes would let firms emit more before reporting it], ''Chicago Tribune'', September 28, 2005</ref>

In July 2005 the ''New York Times'' reported that "the Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking outside public relations consultants, ===Industry friendly laws===According to be paid up to $5 million over five yearsa draft plan, to polish its Web sitefinalized in 2006, organize focus groups [[Bush administration]] political appointees would evaluate industry-funded human tests on how to buff the office's image and ghostwrite articles 'for publication in scholarly journals and magazines'." [httpa case-by-case basis://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18contracts.html?adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1121705049-QL8+Ffp434i0WQuznCG02Q&pagewanted=print]

But :"In setting limits on chemicals in food and water, the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has asked the agency's Inspector General Protection Agency may rely on industry tests that expose people to investigate the request for proposals. PEER poisons and raise ethical questions the "appropriateness of using funds for image enhancement that would otherwise be available for public health and environmental research," citing current laws that prohibit the use of tax dollars "for publicity or propaganda purposes." The EPA has recently awarded two PR contracts totaling $150<ref>John Heilprin,000 for the writing and placement of "good stories" about EPA's research office in consumer and trade publications, the Times reports. [http://wwwnews.nytimesfindlaw.com/2005ap_stories/07a/18w/politics1155/11-30-2004/18contracts20041130051502_12.html?adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1121705049-QL8+Ffp434i0WQuznCG02Q&pagewanted=printEPA Looking at Using Human Tests]," [[Associated Press]], November 30, 2004</ref>

==PR contractors=Industry influence===In February 2007, ''O'Dwyer's PR Daily'' reported A 2011 study in "Administrative Law Review" found that industries had significant influence over citizen groups in the "Environmental Protection AgencyEPA's radiation unit has moved to award a crisis PR contract to [[Widmeyer Communications]] without a competitive review. ... The firm has previously conducted focus groups with EPA emergency responders and communicators to develop responses in Air Toxic Emission Standards at three distinct stages of the event of such a disaster." [httpregulation process://www.odwyerpr.com/members/0228epa_widmeyer.htm]

==:"At the pre-proposal stage, industry had an average of 84 informal communications with the EPA per rule; public interest groups had an average of 0.7 communications per rule. During the comment process, industry provided approximately 81% of the total comments; public interest groups provided 4%. Changes made to the final rule after notice and secondhand tobacco smoke==comment favored industry by a factor of 4 to 1 as compared to the changes benefitting the public interest. Post-final rule activity was considerable as well. Petitions and litigation occurred for 22% of the rules, with industry filings accounting for 2 times those filed by public interest groups. After promulgation of the rules, moreover, roughly 70% of the rules were revised and amended, with an average rate of over 4 revisions per rule for those that were revised at least once." <ref>Wendy Wagner, Katherine Barnes, and Lisa Peters, [http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/alr/vol63/iss1/4/ "Rulemaking in the Shade: An Empirical Study of EPA's Air Toxic Emission Standards."] WCL Journals & Law Reviews, Vol. 63, Iss. 1, 2011.</ref>

In December, 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a risk assessment titled [http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ets/etsindex.cfm The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking] that concluded that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen which kills about 3,000 nonsmokers each year and is responsible for up 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children annually. The study stated that secondhand tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. ==EPA estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 respiratory infections annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to secondhand smoke. EPA also concluded that secondhand smoke was associated middle ear effusions, upper respiratory tract irritation, and small reductions in lung function, and that it increased severity of asthma symptoms in children. EPA estimated that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by exposure to secondhand smoke and that tobacco smoke exposure may also be a risk factor for the development of new cases of asthma.& agribusiness==

==Tobacco =The CAFO papers===In 2004, the government released hundreds of pages of documentation exposing [[Bush administration]] granting the [[meat & dairy industry]] control over a proposal to let Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)s or factory farms, off the hook for pollution violations. The documents revealed the extent of industry influence, with monthly closed door meetings between the administration and industry [[lobbyists]]. In May of 2002, lobbyists proposed a deal to let industry off the hook for violations of the basic environmental protections such as the [[Clean Air Act]] and toxics laws. The EPA's proposed agreement closely mirror's the industry's antiwish list. Other documents revealed the extent of access granted to industry polluters. Lobbyist even wrote a power-point presentation for the EPA ad campaign==, literally putting words in their mouths. <ref>[http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/cafo_papers/ The CAFO Papers: Animal Factories Using Closed-Door Meetings with Bush Administration to Evade Environmental Laws], [[Sierra Club]] Press Room, pg 1-2, May - October 2003</ref>

The risk assessment immediately drew the ire ===Smithfield Foods & Clean Water Act===In August of tobacco companies1997, [[Smithfield Foods]] was fined 12. The 6 million dollars for violating the U.S. tobacco industry fought EPA's risk assessment [[Clean Water Act]] in part Smithfield, Virginia by trying to discredit a U.S. District Court in Norfolk, Virginia. It is the largest fine ever imposed under the Clean Water Act. Smithfield was dumping hog waste into the Pagan River, a tributary flowing into the reportChesapeake Bay. An example of their efforts is one A May 1997 ruling found the company's failure to install adequate pollution control equipment and properly treat waste water resulted in a series more than 5,000 violations of ads proposed by permit limits. The violations occurred for over five years and degraded the Pagan River, the James River and the Chesapeake Bay. Another ruling found the company had falsified documents and destroyed water quality records. Because the company delayed installing essential pollution control equipment and continued dumping waste into the river for five years, the EPA and the ad firm [[Young & RubicamDepartment of Justice]] for the , forced them to build a sewage treatment plant. <ref>[http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/331enr.htm Smithfield Foods Fined $12.6 Million in Largest Clean Water Act Fine Ever], [[tobacco industryU.S. Department of Justice]] , News Release, August 1997</ref> Smithfield had appealed a series of lower district court rulings, arguing that the United States was barred from suing the company due to help stop people from believing EPA's risk assessmentan "agreement" with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality that allowed them to "exceed permit limits". In September of 1999, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The ad says panel of three judges unanimously agreed that Virginia’s agreement not to enforce the EPAphosphorous was not part of the company's Risk Assessment on secondhand smoke is as believable as someone saying that Elvis Presley didn't dieEPA approved permit. <ref>[http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/135261f4d1edd40885257359003d4807/c7a68726816ff7b3852567ef0053e790!OpenDocument Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Against Smithfield Foods for Polluting Virginia River], [[Environmental Protection Agency]], News Release, but was abducted by space aliensSeptember 1999</ref> See also [[Smithfield Foods]]. The ad text read as follows:

ButFederal and state officials were accused of " grossly underestimating" the numbers of people at risk for llethal asbestos-related diseases, in lower Manhattan, after the collapse of coursethe World Trade Center. Evaluations by teams of leading asbestos researchers showed an increased risk to those who live, while these reports are good for a chucklework or study in areas which were not "properly decontaminated", you're not going to believe thembe as high as one additional cancer death for every 10 people exposed. Unless you see Elvis with your very own eyes. In person. OrThe figures were revealed as leading government officials continued to insist there were "no long-term health risks" to those living and working near ground zero and exposed to dust from hundreds of thousands of tons of asbestos containing products used in the floors, at the very leastwalls, on ceilings and the Eleven Otwin towers'clock Newssteel frame.<brref>Andrew Schneider [http://www.seattlepi.com/attack/54382_asbestos14.shtml NYC under an asbestos cloud], St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 2002</ref>

If you apply The EPA requires massive amounts of [[animal testing]] for the marketing of industrial chemicals, vaccines and [[pharmaceutical]]s. <ref>[http://www.stopanimaltests.com/us-gov.asp U.S. Government Testing Programs], [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]], accessed February 2009</ref> Force feeding animals increasing doses of chemicals (until they die) was invented around World War I and is still the same most common animal test to the recent used today. The EPA report about incidental tobacco smokerequires pesticides be tested on dogs, you have to come away with the same conclusionwho are shoved into "inhalation chambers" while deadly poisons that are pumped in. <ref>[http://www.stopanimaltests.com/us-gov.asp U.S. Government Testing Programs], PETA.org, accessed February 2009<br/ref>

BecauseThousands of rats, incredible as it may seemmice, when rabbits, dogs, and primates are killed in "pre-clinical" tests for new drugs (including all ingredients and even minor differences in formulas). Following an extensive battery of animal testing, drugs generally undergo three phases of clinical trials. The fact that months or years of human studies are also required suggests health authorities do not trust the EPA declared results. <ref>[http://www.stopanimaltests.com/us-fda.asp U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)], PETA.org, accessed February 2009</ref> '''In 2004, the [[Food and Drug Administration]] (FDA) reported that incidental smoke 92 out of every 100 drugs that successfully pass animal trials, subsequently fail human trials.''' <ref>Harding, A. ''More compounds failing phase I. FDA chief warns that high drug attrition rate is harmful to nonsmokerspushing up the cost of drug development.'' The Scientist, August 6th 2004</ref>, they did so based on research so flawed that one scientist calls it "rotten science<ref>[http://www.curedisease." Others call it data manipulationnet/news/primate_inquiry_submission.pdf NHP Study: Evidence from Europeans for Medical Progress and Antidote-Europe], Safer Medicines Campaign, pg 1, accessed February 2009<br/ref>

What they did was gather disparate studies ==="Acceptable" toxicity levels===The EPA requires more chemical toxicity animal testing than any other federal agency. Rather than working to reduce levels of toxic chemicals and emissions, the EPA has established "acceptable" exposure levels based on animal testing. In spite of hundreds of thousands of animals killed and calls to limit exposures to humans and the environment, the subject EPA has not banned a toxic chemical in 10 years, using it's authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of incidental smoke1976. When they found that most <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html Summary of those studies did not support their positionthe Toxic Substances Control Act], Environmental Protection Agency, January 2009</ref> In fact, the chemical industry approves a near exclusive reliance on animal testing, they simply discarded themsince results are non-conclusive and easily manipulated. <ref>[Notehttp: this last section was lined out by hand//www.stopanimaltests.com/u-epa.asp Environmental Protection Agency], PETA.org, accessed January 1, 2008<br/ref>

Then they abandoned regular scientific procedures "Pesticides" may include synthetic chemicals, genetically engineered toxins and even natural substances (such as garlic) as well as insects, bacteria and blew out viruses. The EPA's Office of proportion Pesticide Programs' (OPP) authority comes from the conclusions Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lfra.html Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)], EPA.gov, August 2007</ref> The OPP requires an extensive battery of toxicity tests on animals for every pesticide manufactured or sold in the remaining few studiesU.S. Approximately 12,000 animals (rats, mice, rabbits, birds, fish and dogs) are killed to satisfy the "data requirements" for a single active ingredient. <ref>[http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-pesticides.asp Office of Pesticide Programs], PETA. org, accessed February 2009</ref>, <ref>[Notehttp: //www.peta.org/feat/epa03/requirements.html Don't Let the EPA Paint the words "remaining few" are lined out White House Red! Animal Tests Commonly Required by handthe EPA Assess Pesticide Toxicity], PETA.]org, accessed February 2009<br/ref>See also [[animal testing]], section 3 on ''product testing''.

Unfortunately===Facility information, thereprogress reports & USDA-APHIS reports===For links to copies of a facility's nothing funny about this[[U.<br>S. Department of Agriculture]] (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection (APHIS) reports, other information and links, see also [http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/res-fr.html Stop Animal Experimentation NOW!: Facility Reports and Information]. This site contains listings for all 50 states, links to biomedical research facilities in that state and PDF copies of government documents where facilities must report their animal usage. (Search: EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; EPA National Exposure Research Lab, Cincinatti, Ohio)

Since over one-quarter ===USDA AWA reports===As of us smokeMay 26, and many other may occasionally be exposed to incidental smoke2009, the American people must have a right to demand that the EPA back up their assertions with USDA began posting all inspection reports for animal breeders, dealers, exhibitors, handlers, research that adheres to accepted scientific methodsfacilities and animal carriers by state. See also [http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/inspection_list.shtml USDA Animal Welfare Inspection Reports].<br>

Until then===Secondhand smoke===In December of 1992, you can file the EPA report right next issued a risk assessment entitled ''The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking'' that concluded that secondhand smoke is a carcinogen which kills about 3,000 nonsmokers each year and is responsible for up 300,000 cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children annually. The study stated that secondhand tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis and pneumonia. EPA estimated that 150,000 to 300,000 respiratory infections annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to the one [[secondhand smoke]]. EPA also concluded that sayssecondhand smoke was associated middle ear effusions, upper respiratory tract irritation, "the King was abducted and small reductions in lung function, and that it increased severity of asthma symptoms in children. EPA estimated that up to 1 million asthmatic children have their condition worsened by space aliens exposure to secondhand smoke and is now rockin' and shakin' that tobacco smoke exposure may also be a risk factor for folks in another galaxythe development of new cases of asthma."<br><ref>[http://legacycfpub.libraryepa.ucsf.edugov/ncea/cfm/tidets/ajc81f00 Elvis Livesetsindex.cfm The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking] Ad copy. May 18, 1993. Philip Morris Bates No.2025659654EPA, December 1992</ref></blockquote>

===Tobacco industry's anti-EPA ad campaign===The risk assessment immediately drew the ire of tobacco companies. The phrase "incidental smoke" U.S. tobacco industry fought EPA's risk assessment in part by trying to discredit the above ad text resulted report. An example of their efforts is one in part from a much larger presentation Y series of ads proposed by the ad firm [[Young & R prepared Rubicam]] for the industry in 1993 called [[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Young_%26_Rubicam#Secondhand_smoke_language_exploratory|"ETS Issue Language Exploratory"tobacco industry]], which was an attempt to fabricate language that would minimize help stop people from believing EPA's risk assessment. The ad says the issue of EPA's Risk Assessment on secondhand smoke for use in public messagingis as believable as someone saying that Elvis Presley didn't die, but was abducted by space aliens.<ref>Young & Rubicam [httpThe ad text reads://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/luq22e00 The ETS Issue Language Exploratory] Report. May 18, 1993. 12 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342686/2697 </ref>

Another draft ad titled :"All You've no doubt heard the rumors or read the Air We Breathe reports that, somewhere, Elvis Presley is Secondhand" employed Y & R- concocted phrases like "alive and well. But, of course, while these reports are good for a chuckle, you're not going to believe them. Unless you see Elvis with your very own eyes. In person. Or, at the very least, on the Eleven O'clock News. In other words, unless you have information you can rely on. If you apply the same test to the recent EPA's scare du jourreport about incidental tobacco smoke, you have to come away with the same conclusion. Because, incredible as it may seem," "when the EPA declared that incidental smoke" and is harmful to nonsmokers, they did so based on research so flawed that one scientist calls it "rotten science."<ref>[http://legacyOthers call it data manipulation.library What they did was gather disparate studies on the subject of incidental smoke.ucsf.edu/tid/twu39e00 Draft ad copy] January 1993When they found that most of those studies did not support their position, they simply discarded them. Philip Morris Bates No(This last section was lined out by hand. 2501342729</ref> )

In 1994 Philip Morris ran a series :Then they abandoned regular scientific procedures and blew out of proportion the conclusions of ads in newspapers the remaining few studies. (including Note: the Wall Street Journal) titled, words "Were You Misled?remaining few" with are lined out by hand.) And then they said the intent sky is falling. Unfortunately, there's nothing funny about this. Since over one-quarter of publicizing us smoke, and many other may occasionally be exposed to incidental smoke, the American people must have a right to demand that the EPA back up their assertions with research that adheres to accepted scientific methods. In other words, reliable information, not data manipulation. Until then, you can file the alleged flaws in EPAreport right next to the one that says, "the King was abducted by space aliens and is now rockin's risk assessmentand shakin' for folks in another galaxy." <ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ebu76d00ajc81f00 Elvis Lives], [[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ado32d00Philip Morris]][http://legacy, Bates No.library.ucsf.edu/tid2025659654, May 18, 1993</zoa51a00]ref>

==Additional tobacco The phrase "incidental smoke" in the above ad text resulted in part from a much larger presentation which [[Young & Rubicam]] (Y&R) prepared for the industry attacks==in 1993 entitled ''ETS Issue Language Exploratory''. The ad attempted to fabricate language minimalizing the issue of secondhand smoke for use in public messaging. <ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/luq22e00 The ETS Issue Language Exploratory], [[Young & Rubicam ]], May 18, 1993. 12 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342686/2697</ref> Another draft ad entitled "All the Air We Breathe is Secondhand" , used Y & R concocted phrases like "EPA's scare du jour," "incidental smoke" and "rotten science". <ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/twu39e00 Draft ad copy], January 1993. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342729</ref> In 1994, [[Philip Morris]] ran a series of ads in newspapers (including the [[Wall Street Journal]]) titled, "Were You Misled?" with the intent of publicizing the alleged flaws in EPA's risk assessment. <ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ebu76d00 Were You Misled? This Week, Read Another Side of the Story about Secondhand Tobacco Smoke.], [[Wall Street Journal]], June 27, 1994, Bates No. TI16601221</ref>, <ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ado32d00 Were You Misled?], Phillip Morris, 1994, Bates No. 2046725244</ref>, <ref>[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/zoa51a00 Were You Misled?], Phillip Morris, June 24, 1994, Bates No. 970259842/9843</ref>

In an ironic twist, while Humber says Philip Morris needs to keep major employers from voluntarily stampeding towards smoke-free workplace policies, he at the same time says the company needs to position itself as a defender of democratic principles and protector of "rights for all." Humber boasts how, using the [[front groups]] "[[Citizens for a Sound Economy]]" and the "[[Institute for Regulatory Policy]]," B-M arranged a symposium where the keynote speaker was the vice-president of the U.S., then assured that the media coverage generated by the event was dominated by the corporate message of "overregulation." Humber also pointed out that PM could find allies in [[Ventilation Task Force|ventilation businesses]], since they stand to profit from PM's stance that ventilation is the solution to problems caused by secondhand smoke (not smoking bans). <ref>Tom Humber, Burson Marsteller [http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqx74e00 ETS] , Memorandum. 1993. , 16 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2024713141/3156, 1993</ref>

==EPA & agribusinessPublic relations tactics==

===The CAFO Papers===In 2004, July 2005 the government released hundreds of pages of documentation exposing [[Bush administrationNew York Times]] granting reported that the [[meat & dairy industry]] control over a proposal to let Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO)EPA's or factory farms, off the hook for pollution violations. The documents revealed the extent Office of industry influence, with monthly closed door meetings between the administration Research and industry Development was seeking outside [[lobbyistspublic relations]]. In May of 2002consultants, to be paid up to $5 million over five years to polish its web site, lobbyists proposed a deal organize focus groups on how to let industry off the hook for violations of the basic environmental protections such as the [[Clean Air Act]] and toxics laws. The EPA's proposed agreement closely mirror's buff the industryoffice's wish list. Other documents revealed the extent of access granted to industry polluters. Lobbyist even wrote a power-point presentation image and ghostwrite articles "for the EPA, literally putting words publication in their mouths. <ref>[[Sierra Club]] [http://www.sierraclubscholarly journals and magazines".org/pressroom/cafo_papers/ The CAFO Papers: Animal Factories Using Closed-Door Meetings with Bush Administration to Evade Environmental Laws], Press Room, pg 1-2, May - October 2003</ref>

The non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) asked the agency's Inspector General to investigate the request for proposals. PEER questioned the "appropriateness of using funds for image enhancement that would otherwise be available for public health and environmental research." They cited laws prohibiting the use of tax dollars "for publicity or propaganda purposes." The EPA was recently awarded two PR contracts totaling $150,000; for the writing and placement of "good stories" about EPA's research office in consumer and trade publications. <ref>Felicity Barringer [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18contracts.html?adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=EPA 1121705049-QL8+Ffp434i0WQuznCG02Q& animal testing=pagewanted=print Public Relations Campaign for Research Office at E.P.A. Includes Ghostwriting Articles], [[New York Times]], July 2005</ref>

===EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)PR contractors===The EPA requires massive amounts of [[animal testing]] for In February 2007, ''O'Dwyer's PR Daily'' reported that the marketing of industrial chemicals, vaccines and drugs. <ref>"Environmental Protection Agency's radiation unit has moved to award a crisis PR contract to [[People for the Ethical Treatment of AnimalsWidmeyer Communications]] [http://wwwwithout a competitive review.stopanimaltests.com/us-gov.asp U.S. Government Testing Programs], accessed February 2009</ref> Force feeding animals increasing doses of chemicals (until they die) was invented around World War I The firm has previously conducted focus groups with EPA emergency responders and is still communicators to develop responses in the most common animal test used todayevent of such a disaster. The EPA requires pesticides be tested on dogs, who are shoved into "inhalation chambers" while deadly poisons that are pumped in. <ref>PETA.org [http://www.stopanimaltests.com/us-gov.asp U.S. Government Testing Programs]''O'Dwyer's PR Daily'', accessed February 20092007</ref>

==Leadership="Acceptable" toxicity levels===The EPA requires more chemical toxicity animal testing than any other federal agency. According to [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA), rather than working to reduce levels of toxic chemicals and emissions, the EPA has established "acceptable" exposure levels based on animal testing. In spite of hundreds of thousands of animals killed and calls to limit exposures to humans and the environment, the EPA has not banned a toxic chemical in 10 years, using it's authority under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976. <ref>Environmental Protection Agency [http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act], January 2009</ref> The chemical industry approves a near-exclusive reliance on animal testing, since results are non-conclusive and easily manipulated. <ref>PETA.org [http://www.stopanimaltests.com/u-epa.asp Environmental Protection Agency], accessed January 1, 2008</ref> "Pesticides" may include synthetic chemicals, genetically engineered toxins and even natural substances (such as garlic) as well as insects, bacteria and viruses. The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) regulative authority comes from the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). <ref>Environmental Protection Agency [http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lfra.html Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)], August 2007</ref> The OPP requires an extensive battery of toxicity tests on animals for every pesticide manufactured or sold in the United States. Approximately 12,000 animals (rats, mice, rabbits, birds, fish and dogs) are killed to satisfy the "data requirements" for a single active ingredient. <ref>PETA.org [http://www.peta.org/feat/epa03/requirements.html Don't Let the EPA Paint the White House Red! Animal Tests Commonly Required by the EPA Assess Pesticide Toxicity], accessed February 2009</ref>, <ref>PETA.org [http://www.stopanimaltests.com/f-pesticides.asp Office of Pesticide Programs], accessed February 2009</ref> See also [[U.S. Government's War on Animals]], section 5 & [[animal testing]], section 3 on ''product testing''.

===Key personnel===*[[Charles E. Johnson]], Chief Financial Officer- COO*[[Ann R. Klee]], Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (- General Counsel)

===Previous EPA Administratorsadministrators===*[[Stephen L. Johnson]] - 05/02/05 present *[[Stephen L. Johnson]] (Actingacting) 01/26/05 to 05/01/05 (05/02/05 to present)

*[[Marianne L. Horinko]] (Actingacting) 07/12/03 to 11/05/03 *[[Linda J. Fisher]] (Actingacting) 06/28/03 to 07/11/03

*[[W. Michael McCabe]] (Actingacting) 01/20/01 to 01/30/01

*[[Lee M. Thomas]] (Actingacting) 01/04/85 to 02/07/85

*[[Lee Verstandig]] (Actingacting) 03/10/83 to 05/17/83

*[[Walter Barber, Jr.]] (Actingacting) 01/26/81 to 05/19/81 *[[Steve Jellinek]] (Actingacting) 01/21/81 to 01/25/81

*[[John Quarles, Jr.]] - (Actingacting) 01/21/77 to 03/06/77

*[[Robert Fri]] (Actingacting) 04/30/73 to 09/12/73 *[[William D. Ruckelshaus]] - 12/04/70 to 04/30/73 <ref>[http://www.epa.gov/history/admin/agency/index.htm SourceAgency Administrators], EPA.gov, accessed December 2009</ref>

== Articles & resources sources ==

=== SourceWatch resources articles ===*[[Winston H. Hickox]] - Former head in California*[[Animal testing]]

*[[Meat & Dairy industry]]*[[Smithfield Foods]]*[[Clean Water Act]]*[[Clean Air ActMichele Corash]]

 *Susan Edelman and Stefan C. Friedman, "[http://www.nypost.com/news/regionalnews/5746.htm You Could End With The EPA Killing More People Than The Terrorists]," New York Post, September 14, 2003, quotes [[Jerrold Nadler]], a Democrat whose district includes [[Ground Zero]], saying, "You could end with the EPA killing more people than the terrorists."*[http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/18/opinion/18SAT1.html?th Presidential Ecospeak], Op-Ed, ''[[New York Times'']], October 18, 2003: "President Bush's nominee to run the Environmental Protection Agency, [[Mike Leavitt]], finally won committee approval this week, but not before a half-dozen senators had openly expressed exasperation at his habit of retreating behind [[ecofriendly]] phrases when asked about his record as Utah's governor. Which means, of course, that Mr. Leavitt will fit right in with the Bush administration. Indeed, Mr. Bush himself may fairly be said to have become the master of the ostensibly ecofriendly sound bite, offering oversimplified solutions to complex environmental problems and wrapping them in tempting slogans that hide their generally pro-business tilt."*Juliet Eilperin, "[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62569-2004Oct25.html Chemical Industry Funds Aid EPA Study]," ''Washington Post'', October 26, 2004.*John Heilprin, "[http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/w/1155/11-30-2004/20041130051502_12.html EPA Looking at Using Human Tests]," ''Associated Press'', November 30, 2004. "In setting limits on chemicals in food and water, the Environmental Protection Agency may rely on industry tests that expose people to poisons and raise ethical questions." The draft plan, calling for [[Bush administration]] political appointees to evaluate industry-funded human tests on a case-by-case basis, is expected to be finalized in 2006.*Steve Lipsher, "[http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_2801940 EPA portrayed as energy ally: Environmentalist slams view of agency as development "catalyst"]", ''Denver Post'', June 14, 2005.*Felicity Barringer, [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/18/politics/18contracts.html?adxnnl=0&adxnnlx=1121705049-QL8+Ffp434i0WQuznCG02Q&pagewanted=print "Public Relations Campaign for Research Office at E.P.A. Includes Ghostwriting Articles,"] ''New York Times'', July 18, 2005: "The Office of Research and Development at the Environmental Protection Agency is seeking outside public relations consultants, to be paid up to $5 million over five years, to polish its Web site, organize [[focus group]]s on how to buff the office's image and [[ghostwriters|ghostwrite articles]] 'for publication in scholarly journals and magazines.'"*Bob Dart, "[http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/0705/19bizweather.html Weather Channel-EPA deal starts mini-storm: Agency paid for segments on climate change]", ''Atlanta Journal-Constitution'', July 19, 2005.*"[http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=382299&category=OPINION&BCCode=HOME&newsdate=7/24/2005 Weather for a price: The EPA pays a popular cable channel to broadcast reports on climate change]", ''TimesUnionTimes-Union.com'', July 24, 2005.*Michael Hawthorne, [http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0509280147sep28,1,5979839.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed "EPA tells polluters it wants less data. Rule changes would let firms emit more before reporting it,"] ''Chicago Tribune'', September 28, 2005: "Under a proposal from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, industrial companies would be freed from reporting most chemical releases of less than 5,000 pounds, up from 500 pounds under current law. Factories, power plants, refineries and other sources of pollution also would need to report their releases only every other year instead of annually."*Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, "[http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=626 EPA Surveys News Editors to Assess Its Image: Tax Dollars Used to Bolster Agency’s Tattered Reputation]", Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Media Release, January 5, 2006.*John Heilprin, [http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1602478&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312 "EPA Budget Cuts Trouble Environment Groups,"] , [[Associated Press (ABC News), ]] February 10, 2006.*Brian Tokar, et al., [http://www.environmentalcommons.org/RegulatoryDeficiencies.html BRIEFING REPORT: Deficiencies in Federal Regulatory Oversight of Genetically Engineered Crops], Institute for Social Ecology, June 2006.

*Christopher Brauchli, "[http://www.counterpunch.org/brauchli12272006.html What They Don't Want You to Read Could Save Your Life: Burning EPA's Books]", ''[[Counterpunch'']], December 27, 2006.

*Sue Goetinck Ambrose, "[http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/healthscience/stories/052707dnentendocrine.3a08215.html Scientists criticize EPA chemical screening program]: Experts worry agency's program will miss harmful effects on hormones; agency counters program developed in an open manner]," ''The Dallas Morning News'', May 27, 2007.*Robert McClure, "[http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/environment/archives/141267.asp EPA whistleblower trial delves into 9/11 pollution coverupcover up, toxic waste in fertilizer and more]," Dateline Earth: ''Seattle Post-Intelligencer'' (Seattle, Washington) environmental blog, June 16, 2008.* Ken Ward Jr., "[http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2009/03/15/3ms-man-at-the-epa/ 3M’s man at the EPA?]," "Sustained Outrage" blog at ''The Charleston Gazette'' (West Virginia), March 15, 2009.

*Matthew Daly, "[http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gPP5LrRUGEqyhGyTshXm5In9yrrQD98SKL9G1 EPA declares health emergency e mergency in Montana town]," [[Associated Press]], June 18, 2009*Joshua Frank, "[http://www.counterpunch.com/frank03032010.html The EPA's Coal Ash Whitewash: Agency Grossly Understates Coal Ash Dangers]", Counterpunch, March 3, 2010.*[[Lisa Jackson]], [http://www.eenews.net/assets/2010/11/08/document_pm_03.pdf Letter to Joe Barton regarding the EPA and the Clean Air Act], Nov. 8, 2010  ===External resources===* [http://www.insideepa.com/ Inside EPA], insideepa.com, accessed March 2010

[[categoryCategory:Environment]][[Category:Energy]][[Category:Coal Issues]][[Category:government agencies (US)Fracking]][[categoryCategory:environmentWater]][[Category: Animal testing]][[Category:Tobaccowiki]][[Category:Tobacco documents organizations]] [[Category: Agriculture]] [[Category: Animal Commercecommerce]] [[Category: Food industry]][[Category:Government agencies (US)]]