Open main menu
SourceWatch

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Revision as of 19:48, 7 September 2009 by Lisa G. Leming (talk | contribs) (SW: sectioning)

{{#badges: Tobaccowiki | WaterEnergy | CoalSwarm}}

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), formed in 1970 under then-President Richard M. Nixon, is responsible for national issues of environmental health and shares responsibility for conservation with the Department of the Interior. Lisa Jackson is the Obama administration's EPA Administrator.

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

Contents

Public relations tactics

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, to be paid up to $5 million over five years, to polish its Web site, organize focus groups on how to buff the office's image and ghostwrite articles 'for publication in scholarly journals and magazines'." [1]

But the non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has asked the agency's Inspector General to investigate the request for proposals. PEER 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 $150,000 for the writing and placement of "good stories" about EPA's research office in consumer and trade publications, the Times reports. [2]

PR contractors

In February 2007, O'Dwyer's PR Daily reported that 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 communicators to develop responses in the event of such a disaster." [3]

EPA and secondhand tobacco smoke

In December, 1992 the Environmental Protection Agency issued a risk assessment titled 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.

Tobacco industry's anti-EPA ad campaign

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 discredit the report. An example of their efforts is one in a series 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 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 read as follows:

You've no doubt heard the rumors or read the reports that, somewhere, Elvis Presley is 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 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. [Note: 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, 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."
[1]

The phrase "incidental smoke" in the above ad text resulted in part from a much larger presentation Y & R prepared for the industry in 1993 called ["ETS Issue Language Exploratory"], which was an attempt to fabricate language that would minimize the issue of secondhand smoke for use in public messaging.[2]

Another draft ad titled "All the Air We Breathe is Secondhand" employed Y & R- concocted phrases like "EPA's scare du jour," "incidental smoke" and "rotten science."[3]

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.[4][5][6]

Additional tobacco industry attacks

In a 1993 memorandum titled "ETS" (for "environmental tobacco smoke), Thomas Humber of Philip Morris' giant PR firm Burson-Marsteller (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. Humber 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 businesses, since they stand to profit from PM's stance that ventilation is the solution to problems caused by secondhand smoke (not smoking bans). [4]

EPA & agribusiness

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 wish list. Other documents revealed the extent of access granted to industry polluters. Lobbyist even wrote a power-point presentation for the EPA, literally putting words in their mouths. [5]

EPA & animal testing

EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP)

The EPA requires massive amounts of animal testing for the marketing of industrial chemicals, vaccines and drugs. [6] Animal testing includes force feeding animals increasing doses of a chemicals until they die (invented around WWI and still the single most common animal test in use today). The EPA requires pesticides be tested on dogs, who are shoved into "inhalation chambers" while deadly poisons that are pumped in. [7]

"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. [8] The chemical industry approves a near-exclusive reliance on animal testing, since results are non-conclusive and easily manipulated. [9] "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). [10] 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. [11], [12] See also U.S. Government's War on Animals, section 5.

Key personnel

Previous EPA Administrators

Source

Articles & resources

SourceWatch resources

References

  1. ↑ Elvis Lives Ad copy. May 18, 1993. Philip Morris Bates No.2025659654
  2. ↑ Young & Rubicam The ETS Issue Language Exploratory Report. May 18, 1993. 12 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342686/2697
  3. ↑ Draft ad copy January 1993. Philip Morris Bates No. 2501342729
  4. ↑ Tom Humber, Burson Marsteller ETS Memorandum. 1993. 16 pp. Philip Morris Bates No. 2024713141/3156
  5. ↑ Sierra Club The CAFO Papers: Animal Factories Using Closed-Door Meetings with Bush Administration to Evade Environmental Laws, Press Room, pg 1-2, May - October 2003
  6. ↑ People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals U.S. Government Testing Programs, accessed February 2009
  7. ↑ PETA.org U.S. Government Testing Programs, accessed February 2009
  8. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency Summary of the Toxic Substances Control Act, January 2009
  9. ↑ PETA.org Environmental Protection Agency, accessed January 1, 2008
  10. ↑ Environmental Protection Agency Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), August 2007
  11. ↑ PETA.org Don't Let the EPA Paint the White House Red! Animal Tests Commonly Required by the EPA Assess Pesticide Toxicity, accessed February 2009
  12. ↑ PETA.org Office of Pesticide Programs, accessed February 2009

External articles

Retrieved from "https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=U.S._Environmental_Protection_Agency&oldid=438204"

You need to log in to edit this page.

Log in
Sign up