Changes

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

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=1121705049-QL8+Ffp434i0WQuznCG02Q&pagewanted=print Public Relations Campaign for Research Office at E.P.A. Includes Ghostwriting Articles]For greenhouse gas regulations, see also [[New York TimesEPA greenhouse gas issues]], July 2005</ref>.

==PR contractorsCoal issues (subsection)==

In February 2007For coal waste & other coal regulations, ''O'Dwyer's PR Daily'' reported that the "Environmental Protection Agency's radiation unit has moved to award a crisis PR contract to see also [[Widmeyer CommunicationsEPA coal issues]] without a competitive review. ... The firm has previously conducted focus groups with EPA emergency responders and communicators to develop responses in the event of such a disaster." [http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/0228epa_widmeyer.htm]

==EPA and secondhand tobacco smokeEnvironmental toxins & pollution==

===Industry funded chemical study===In December2004, 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[Washington Post]] reported that concluded that secondhand smoke is the EPA had accepted two million dollars from the [[American Chemistry Council]] (ACC), to "fund a carcinogen which kills about 3,000 nonsmokers each year and is responsible for up 300,000 cases study exploring the impact of bronchitis pesticides and pneumonia in household chemicals on young children annually. " The study stated that secondhand tobacco smoke is associated with increased risk Not too surprisingly, the inappropriateness of lower respiratory tract infections such as bronchitis accepting funding from chemical interests and pneumoniaobvious 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 estimated that 150,000 has accepted chemical industry funding to 300conduct "research". The [[Clinton administration]] signed similar agreements. However,000 respiratory infections annually in infants and young children up to 18 months are attributable to secondhand smokeit does represent the largest amount for a chemical trade group. EPA also concluded that secondhand smoke was associated middle ear effusions, upper respiratory tract irritation, The ACC represents about 135 manufacturers and small reductions in lung functionspends $20 million a year on research.<ref>Juliet Eilperin, and that it increased severity of asthma symptoms in children"[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62569-2004Oct25. html Chemical Industry Funds Aid 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 Study: Effect of new cases of asthma.Substances on Children Probed]," [[Washington Post]], October 26, 2004</ref>

==Tobacco industry's anti-=EPA ad campaignproposal 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>

The risk assessment immediately drew the ire of tobacco companies. The U.S. tobacco industry fought EPA's risk assessment in part by trying ===Industry friendly laws===According to discredit the report. An example of their efforts is one a draft plan, finalized in a series of ads proposed by the ad firm 2006, [[Young & RubicamBush administration]] for the [[tobacco political appointees would evaluate industry]] to help stop people from believing EPA's risk assessment. The ad says the EPA's Risk Assessment -funded human tests on secondhand smoke is as believable as someone saying that Elvis Presley didn't die, but was abducted a case-by space aliens. The ad text reads-case basis:

:"You've no doubt heard the rumors or read the reports that, somewhere, Elvis Presley is alive In setting limits on chemicals in food and well. Butwater, 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 Environmental Protection Agency may rely on. If you apply the same test industry tests that expose people to the recent EPA report about incidental tobacco smoke, you have to come away with the same conclusionpoisons and raise ethical questions. Because, incredible as it may seem" <ref>John Heilprin, when the EPA declared that incidental smoke is harmful to nonsmokers, they did so based on research so flawed that one scientist calls it "rotten science[http://news." Others call it data manipulationfindlaw. What they did was gather disparate studies on the subject of incidental smokecom/ap_stories/a/w/1155/11-30-2004/20041130051502_12. When they found that most of those studies did not support their positionhtml EPA Looking at Using Human Tests]," [[Associated Press]], November 30, they simply discarded them. (Note: this last section was lined out by hand.)2004</ref>

:Then they abandoned regular scientific procedures and blew out of proportion the conclusions of the remaining few studies. (Note: the words ===Industry influence===A 2011 study in "remaining fewAdministrative Law Review" are lined out by hand.) And then they said found that industries had significant influence over citizen groups in the sky is falling. Unfortunately, thereEPA's nothing funny about this. Since over one-quarter Air Toxic Emission Standards at three distinct stages of 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 EPA report right next to the one that says, "the King was abducted by space aliens and is now rockin' and shakin' for folks in another galaxy." <ref>[httpregulation process://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ajc81f00 Elvis Lives] Ad copy. May 18, 1993. Philip Morris Bates No.2025659654</ref>

The phrase :"incidental smoke" in At the above ad text resulted in part from a much larger presentation Y & R prepared for pre-proposal stage, industry had an average of 84 informal communications with the industry in 1993 called [http://wwwEPA per rule; public interest groups had an average of 0.sourcewatch7 communications per rule.org/indexDuring the comment process, industry provided approximately 81% of the total comments; public interest groups provided 4%.php?title=Young_%26_Rubicam#Secondhand_smoke_language_exploratory|"ETS Issue Language Exploratory"], which was an attempt Changes made to fabricate language that would minimize the issue final rule after notice and comment favored industry by a factor of secondhand smoke for use in 4 to 1 as compared to the changes benefitting the public messaginginterest.<ref>Young & Rubicam [http://legacyPost-final rule activity was considerable as well.library.ucsf.edu/tid/luq22e00 The ETS Issue Language Exploratory] Report. May 18Petitions and litigation occurred for 22% of the rules, 1993with industry filings accounting for 2 times those filed by public interest groups. 12 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342686/2697</ref> Another draft ad titled "All After promulgation of the Air We Breathe is Secondhand" employed Y & R- concocted phrases like "EPA's scare du jourrules, moreover," "incidental smoke" 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."rotten science. <ref>Wendy Wagner, Katherine Barnes, and Lisa Peters, [http://legacydigitalcommons.librarywcl.ucsfamerican.edu/tidalr/twu39e00 Draft ad copy] January 1993. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342729<vol63/iss1/4/ref>In 1994 [[Philip Morris]] ran a series of ads "Rulemaking in newspapers (including the [[Wall Street Journal]]) titled, "Were You Misled?" with the intent Shade: An Empirical Study of publicizing the alleged flaws in EPA's risk assessmentAir Toxic Emission Standards.[http://legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ebu76d00"][http://legacyWCL Journals & Law Reviews, Vol.library63, Iss.ucsf.edu/tid/ado32d00]1, [http://legacy2011.library.ucsf.edu</tid/zoa51a00]ref>

==Additional tobacco industry attacksEPA & agribusiness==

===The CAFO papers===In a 1993 memorandum titled "ETS" (for "environmental tobacco smoke)2004, the government released hundreds of pages of documentation exposing [[Thomas HumberBush administration]] of Philip Morris' giant PR firm granting the [[Burson-Marstellermeat & dairy industry]] control over a proposal to let Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (B-MCAFO) writes to 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 [[Ellen Merlolobbyists]] . In May of 2002, lobbyists proposed a deal to let industry off the hook for violations of the basic environmental protections such as the [[Philip Morris Corporate AffairsClean Air Act]] (PM) to signal and toxics laws. The EPA's proposed agreement closely mirror's the start of PMindustry's war against wish list. Other documents revealed the EPA after EPA pronounced secondhand smoke a group A carcinogenextent of access granted to industry polluters. In the memo, Humber emphasized how PM needed to discredit Lobbyist even wrote a power-point presentation for the EPA, portray the agency as corrupt, encourage other businesses 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 oppose EPAEvade Environmental Laws], and cast EPA as an agency under siege. Humber tells Merlo PM needs to sue EPA ("Sue the bastards!") as a way to help the industry regain credibility[[Sierra Club]] Press Room, encourage other companies to fight EPApg 1-2, and "delay or cloud" other legal actions against the company.May - October 2003</ref>

===Smithfield Foods & Clean Water Act===In an ironic twistAugust of 1997, [[Smithfield Foods]] was fined 12.6 million dollars for violating the U.S. [[Clean Water Act]] in Smithfield, Virginia by a U.S. District Court in Norfolk, while Humber says Philip Morris needs to keep major employers from voluntarily stampeding towards smoke-free workplace policiesVirginia. It is the largest fine ever imposed under the Clean Water Act. Smithfield was dumping hog waste into the Pagan River, he at a tributary flowing into the same time says Chesapeake Bay. A May 1997 ruling found the company needs 's failure to position itself as a defender of democratic principles install adequate pollution control equipment and protector properly treat waste water resulted in more than 5,000 violations of "rights permit limits. The violations occurred for allover 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." Humber boasts how Because the company delayed installing essential pollution control equipment and continued dumping waste into the river for five years, using the EPA and the [[front groupsDepartment of Justice]] ", forced them to build a sewage treatment plant. <ref>[[Citizens for a Sound Economyhttp://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/1997/August97/331enr.htm Smithfield Foods Fined $12.6 Million in Largest Clean Water Act Fine Ever]]" and the ", [[Institute for Regulatory PolicyU.S. Department of Justice]]," B-M arranged News Release, August 1997</ref> Smithfield had appealed a symposium where series of lower district court rulings, arguing that the keynote speaker United States was barred from suing the company due to an "agreement" with the vice-president Virginia Department of Environmental Quality that allowed them to "exceed permit limits". In September of 1999, the 4th U.S., then assured Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. The panel of three judges unanimously agreed that Virginia’s agreement not to enforce the media coverage generated by the event phosphorous was dominated by not part of 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 PMcompany's stance that ventilation is the solution to problems caused by secondhand smoke (not smoking bans)EPA approved permit. <ref>Tom Humber, Burson Marsteller [http://legacyyosemite.libraryepa.ucsfgov/opa/admpress.edunsf/tid135261f4d1edd40885257359003d4807/iqx74e00 ETSc7a68726816ff7b3852567ef0053e790!OpenDocument Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Against Smithfield Foods for Polluting Virginia River] Memorandum. 1993. 16 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2024713141/3156, [[Environmental Protection Agency]], News Release, September 1999</ref>See also [[Smithfield Foods]].

==EPA & agribusiness: The CAFO Papers911 Pollution cover up==

In 2004, Federal and state officials were accused of " grossly underestimating" the government released hundreds numbers 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 farmspeople at risk for llethal asbestos-related diseases, in lower Manhattan, off after the hook for pollution violations. The documents revealed the extent collapse of industry influence, with monthly closed door meetings between the administration and industry [[lobbyists]]World Trade Center. In May Evaluations by teams of 2002leading asbestos researchers showed an increased risk to those who live, work or study in areas which were not "properly decontaminated", lobbyists proposed a deal to let industry off the hook be as high as one additional cancer death for violations of the basic environmental protections such as the [[Clean Air Act]] and toxics lawsevery 10 people exposed. The EPA's proposed agreement closely mirror's the industry's wish list. Other documents figures were revealed the extent of access granted as leading government officials continued to industry polluters. Lobbyist even wrote a powerinsist there were "no long-point presentation for 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 EPAfloors, walls, literally putting words in their mouthsceilings and the twin towers' steel frame. <ref>Andrew Schneider [http://www.sierraclubseattlepi.orgcom/pressroomattack/cafo_papers/ The CAFO Papers: Animal Factories Using Closed-Door Meetings with Bush Administration to Evade Environmental Laws54382_asbestos14.shtml NYC under an asbestos cloud], [[Sierra Club]] Press Room, pg 1St. Louis Post-2Dispatch, May - October 2003January 2002</ref>

The EPA requires more chemical toxicity animal testing than any other federal agency. According to [[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]] (PETA), rather 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>[http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act], Environmental Protection Agency, January 2009</ref> The In fact, the chemical industry approves a near-exclusive reliance on animal testing, since results are non-conclusive and easily manipulated. <ref>[http://www.stopanimaltests.com/u-epa.asp Environmental Protection Agency], PETA.org, accessed January 1, 2008</ref>

* EPA===Facility information, progress reports & USDA-APHIS reports===For links to copies of a facility's [[U.S. Department of Agriculture]] (USDA)-Animal Plant Health Inspection (APHIS) reports, Research Triangle Parkother information and links, North Carolina <ref>see also [http://www.hsusall-creatures.org/animals_in_research/general_information_on_animal_research/research_facilitiessaen/usres-environmental-protection-agencyfr.html Research FacilitiesStop 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, [[Humane Society of the United States]]Cincinatti, accessed January 2009</ref>Ohio)

===Animals by species, numbers & locationsUSDA AWA reports===* EPA National Exposure Research LabAs of May 26, 2009, Cincinattithe USDA began posting all inspection reports for animal breeders, Ohio <ref>dealers, exhibitors, handlers, research facilities and animal carriers by state. See also [http://www.hsusaphis.orgusda.gov/animals_in_researchanimal_welfare/general_information_on_animal_research/research_facilities/us-environmental-protection-agency-national-exposure-research-labinspection_list.html Research Facilities: Name, locationshtml USDA Animal Welfare Inspection Reports], HSUS, accessed December 2009</ref>.

==Tobacco issues=Facility information= ===Secondhand smoke===In December of 1992, the EPA 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 [[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.<ref>[http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/ets/etsindex.cfm The Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking], EPA, progress reports & USDADecember 1992</ref> ===Tobacco industry's anti-APHIS reportsEPA ad campaign===For links The risk assessment immediately drew the ire of tobacco companies. The U.S. tobacco industry fought EPA's risk assessment in part by trying to copies discredit the report. An example of their efforts is one in a facilityseries of ads proposed by the ad firm [[Young & Rubicam]] for the [[tobacco industry]] to help stop people from believing EPA's risk assessment. The ad says the EPA's USDA Risk Assessment on secondhand smoke is as believable as someone saying that Elvis Presley didn't die, but was abducted by space aliens. The ad text reads: :"You've no doubt heard the rumors or read the reportsthat, indicating speciessomewhere, Elvis Presley is alive and well. But, number of animals used 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 report 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 is harmful to nonsmokers, they did so based on research so flawed that one scientist calls it "rotten science." Others call it data manipulation. What they did was gather disparate studies on the subject of incidental smoke. When they found that most of those studies did not support their position, they simply discarded them. (This last section was lined out by hand.) :Then they abandoned regular scientific procedures and blew out of proportion the conclusions of the remaining few studies. (Note: the words "remaining few" are lined out by hand.) And then they said the sky is falling. Unfortunately, there's nothing funny about this. Since over one-quarter of 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 visit , not data manipulation. Until then, you can file the EPA report right next to the one that says, "the King was abducted by space aliens and is now rockin' and shakin' for folks in another galaxy." <ref>[http://wwwlegacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/ajc81f00 Elvis Lives], [[Philip Morris]], Bates No. 2025659654, May 18, 1993</ref> 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 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.all-creaturesedu/tid/zoa51a00 Were You Misled?], Phillip Morris, June 24, 1994, Bates No.org970259842/saen9843</resref> ===Additional tobacco industry attacks===In a 1993 memorandum titled "ETS" (for "environmental tobacco smoke), [[Thomas Humber]] of Philip Morris' giant PR firm [[Burson-frMarsteller]] (B-M) writes to [[Ellen Merlo]] of [[Philip Morris Corporate Affairs]] (PM) to signal the start of PM's war against the EPA after EPA pronounced secondhand smoke a group A carcinogen. In the memo, Humber emphasized how PM needed to discredit the EPA, portray the agency as corrupt, encourage other businesses to oppose EPA, and cast EPA as an agency under siege.html Stop Animal Experimentation NOWHumber tells Merlo PM needs to sue EPA ("Sue the bastards!") as a way to help the industry regain credibility, encourage other companies to fight EPA, and "delay or cloud" other legal actions against the company. 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: Facility Reports //legacy.library.ucsf.edu/tid/iqx74e00 ETS], Memorandum, 16 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2024713141/3156, 1993</ref> ==Public relations tactics== In July 2005 the [[New York Times]] reported that the EPA's Office of Research and InformationDevelopment was seeking outside [[public relations]] consultants, to be paid up to $5 million over five years to polish its web site, USDAorganize focus groups on how to buff the office's image and ghostwrite articles "for publication in scholarly journals and magazines".  The non-Animal Plant Health Inspection reports profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (APHISPEER)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. " This site contains listings They cited laws prohibiting the use of tax dollars "for all 50 statespublicity or propaganda purposes." The EPA was recently awarded two PR contracts totaling $150, links to biomedical 000; for the writing and placement of "good stories" about EPA's research facilities office in consumer and trade publications. <ref>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 2005</ref> ===PR contractors===In February 2007, ''O'Dwyer's PR Daily'' reported that state the "Environmental Protection Agency'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 PDF copies communicators to develop responses in the event of government documents where facilities must report their animal usagesuch a disaster." <ref>''O'Dwyer's PR Daily'', February 2007</ref>

==Key personnelLeadership==

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

*[[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

== Articles & resources sources ==

*[[Smithfield FoodsMichele Corash]]

*Susan Edelman, 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 EPA, [[Mike Leavitt]], finally won committee approval this week; but not before a half-dozen senators 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. Indeed, Mr. Bush 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.*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 commerce]] [[Category: Food industry]][[Category:Government agencies (US)]]