Recently in Business and Technology Category

Last week, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued a preliminary injunction to stop Obama's reinstatement of some of the federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The plaintiffs included Christian Medical Association; the Nightlight Christian Adoptions, an agency that sells the use of frozen embryos it calls "snowflakes" - from fertility clinics; two PH.D. scientists, James Sherely of Watertown, Massachusetts, and Theresa Diesher of Seattle, who do research on adult stem cells and claim that allowing embryonic stem cell research wrecks their chances of getting federal grants; clients for adopted embryos; and the embryos frozen in IVF clinics.

Judge Lamberth's decision was based on the Dickey-Wicker Amendment attached to every Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) bill since 1996. The rider was a pro-life fueled measure, intended to prevent cloning for research purposes. Since 1996, the Dickey-Wicker Amendment has ostensibly prohibited the use of federal funds for:

• "the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes;" or
• "research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under" certain existing laws."

Nevertheless, three administrations, the Clinton, Bush, and Obama, have allowed various levels of federal funding on research on embryonic stem cell lines. The judge's injunction goes so far as to roll back former President Bush's limited acceptance of federally funded stem cell research for certain stem-cell lines created by 2001. The Federal government has requested a stay (.pdf) of the injunction. Who will prevail? The government? Plaintiffs?

Science Community Stunned

The legal move was a blow to the science research community. Said NIH Director Francis Collins: "The NIH was frankly, I was stunned - as was virtually everyone here at NIH - by the judicial decision yesterday".

But remember, back in 2001, prior to the 2002 elections in which Republicans gained seats, and when President Bush was making decisions about stem cell research. A similar group of plaintiffs sued the government. The plaintiffs in Nightlight Christian Adoptions et al v. Thompson included Nightlight Christian Adoptions, the Christian Medical Association; two couples who wanted to adopt embryos and said that stem cell research reduced availability of embryos for adoption; and Dr. David Prentice, a former professor of life sciences at Indiana State University who said that there were better alternatives to hESC, who is now a fellow at the Family Research Council.

Now, nine years later, right before mid-term elections and after Obama plans to expand funding for stem cell research, we have basically the same lawsuit, from basically same plaintiffs.

People have various opinions about what the injunction means and how it will progress in the courts. A lawyer and commenters here at concurringopinions.com discuss why the government will prevail (or won't).

Some scientists speculate that the importance of federally funded embryonic stem cell research has faded, because so much work is done privately. Others, including the plaintiffs, argue that inducible pluripotent stem cells (iPSC) or adult stem cells are just as promising. But most people don't find these arguments too persuasive, and agree that embryonic research is at least a necessary prong to pursue potentially life-saving research. Of course "pro-life" and Christian groups argue that the blastocysts are people which shouldn't be used for research, even if it will save lives.

The plaintiffs' arguments do not persuade for many reasons. Their claim to economic injury is not only unconvincing on its face, considering the plaintiffs and NIH funding structure, it's dwarfed by the impact that stopping the research would have on the lives of sick people. As well, the livelihoods of the researchers are in jeopardy, as is the investment of millions of dollars of government funding that the judge's order seeks to abandon. 24 research projects in which the government has spent $64 million are currently threatened (.pdf) because they had been scheduled to receive $54 million in continuing NIH funding at the end of September.

Should Scientists Have Been Surprised

I was. But maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention. Or maybe I didn't want to believe that such anti-reason would even get a chance. But apparently, all it took was the "right" plaintiff and the "right" judge, at the "right" time.

It's sometimes easier for people (including scientists) to perfunctorily dismiss as terminally unenlightened or misguided, those who hold politically opposing views, for instance those who believe in Creation over evolution. Maybe it's not as head-splittingly frustrating as arguing or teaching. Perhaps a quick witted turn of phrase can morph anti-reason into fodder for jokes, yay! And why not deflect an ugly stand-off with some humor?

James Taranto, of the Wall Street Journal, for one, says that dismissive attitudes (here's one example I thought of: "Poll: So You Want to Build a Mosk?") harms liberal causes because 1) they tend to "mainstream those supposedly fringe notions" (ie: Pew Research Polls that constantly highlight subjects of "culture wars"), and 2) they "put the ugly attitudes of the liberal elite on display."

Scientists discuss these things frequently and blogging scientists have consumed years writing, discussing, comparing and vehemently arguing about various approaches -- hostility, framing, teaching, patience, humor, tolerance, diplomacy, "accomodationism", to deal with anti-reason. (Personally, I can't get attached to one approach or think another is "bad", I believe different writers and audiences will gravitate towards one communication method or another. They complement each other. )

But regardless of whether scientists are "civil", hostile, sarcastic, or choose to ignore what offends them, I wonder if all approaches are fatally flawed not only because of the reasons Taranto and scientists usually discuss, but because scientists are so up to their necks in scientific method. Do we then let ourselves believe that reason will prevail? And does that lead us to ignore what's at stake? The incredible belief everyone had in Obama that he could somehow transcend politics, indicates this may be so. Francis Collins "stunned" response indicates this may be so. Collins, if anyone, with his position and overt religiosity -- he's written books on this! -- should have had his ear to the ground.

Maybe it's a tempest in a teapot, as many seem to think. Maybe Lamberth had an off day and will change his mind, maybe the courts (moving right every day) will come to their senses. But at the moment, those who want to stop hESC seem to be determinately bulldozing things their way, decade after decade.

The ruckus over Obama's proposal to extend only part of Bush's tax breaks -- not the part to ultra-ultra-ultra wealthy individuals -- is maybe playing second fiddle to the mosque ruckus. Maybe this should be obvious, since one involves a little math and reasoning, while the other can be argued from straight from the gut, therefore more people can chatter about Muslim community centers.

News Aimed to the Lowest Common Denominator

But it's a shame more people aren't talking about the tax cuts, because the GOP driven (w/ some Democrats on board) arguments against tax-breaks make no more sense than the ones against the Muslim Community Center, so they should be gossiped about. Plus, the tax-cuts arguably have more impact on the average American than the presence of a community center in downtown New York City.

The Tax Policy Center made a great chart showing who, exactly, would be touched by the Obama tax-cut extension plan. Not until you made $196,549/year would you your tax break be impacted even one cent by Obama's plan.

Once you made $196,540, the Obama plan would take an average of $2 off your $5,508 tax cut - two dollars. The most you would "lose" under Obama -- if you happened to make over $8,367,274 -- that is you were in the top 99.9 percentile in income, making $8.4 million dollars or more, would be $61,500.

The Tax Policy Center notes that the Obama plan will actually only cut a very small part of the overall deficit - 7%. Obama would only change a very small, small number of peoples' incomes (not "small businesses" that would feel the pinch). The TPC says:

"How much will the President's proposal save? Unfortunately, not nearly enough to close the cumulative budget deficit. The administration's proposal shaves off about $680 billion from the 10-year deficit--a modest $68 billion per year"

But the cost of extending all the cuts is worse news. The Tax Policy Center writes: "From a budgetary perspective, the price of extending all of the cuts is steep; full extension would contribute $3.7 trillion to the deficit over the next ten years..."

The Battle Between Math & Rhetoric (hint: math is losing)

Paul Krugman also points out that the insistence on extending the tax cuts as opposed to going with Obama's plan makes no sense. He brings our attention to the craziness of what the GOP is quibbling over, rather than the insignificance of the cuts to the overall budget.

He writes:

"According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, making all of the Bush tax cuts permanent, as opposed to following the Obama proposal, would cost the federal government $680 billion in revenue over the next 10 years. For the sake of comparison, it took months of hard negotiations to get Congressional approval for a mere $26 billion in desperately needed aid to state and local governments."

Even Alan Greenspan, forever shocked that the markets let him down, recommends suspending all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts. Aside from FOX News, where John Stossel is "tired of Greenspan", and finds it "ironic" that Greenspan once wrote for Ayn Rand, and (not ironic the way I do), what's up with the rest of the people?

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, in an interview with John Pilger, was asked if it was difficult to publish secret information in Britain. Assange answered:

'When we look at Official Secrets Act labelled documents we see that they state it is offense to retain the information and an offence to destroy the information. So the only possible outcome we have is to publish the information."

Elsewhere on the continent, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is a hunted man, or so it seems, he has the - I_haven't slept_or_been_able_to_wash_my_hair_in_weeks - look. Fleeting charges about rape made by Sweden were dropped hours later, but the real story remains elusive. The tabloids picked up to explain. Aftonbladet asked one of the women about the rumored Pentagon connection:

De konspirationsteorier som mmar nätet just nu avfårdar kvinnan i 30-årsålden bestämt.

"Anklagelserna mot Assange är förstås inte iscensatta av varken Pentagon eller någon annan. Ansvaret för det som hänt mig och den andra tjejen ligger hos en man med skev kvinnosyn och problem att ta ett nej."

Which gave us a chance to try out Google's Swedish, which translated the exchange as:

The conspiracy theories that are flooding the web right now dismisses the woman in her 30s decided.

"The charges against Assange is of course not orchestrated by either the Pentagon or another. The responsibility for what happened to me and the other girl is in a man with skew kvinnosyn problems and to take no for an answer."

We're not sure what happened with "skew kvinnosyn", whether Google was stumped or censoring. But see? It's not true, any of it, including the bit about the Pentagon.

But it reminds us of the story that came out earlier this year about US government hanky-panky mischief. the FBI learning from listening in on a CIA Iraq Operations Group about an unrealized plan to make-up a video about Saddam Hussein's sexual exploits. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent wrote earlier this year about another ill-advised CIA plan to use Afghan women to elicit sympathy for the war against the Taliban.

Update 08/13: AB 70 was defeated. However, the Bring Your Genes to Cal program was altered because they planned to do the analysis in Berkeley labs, which are not certified medical labs. In accordance with state demands the students will not receive their own results.

Legislation usually moves along at a crawl, slowly, glacially -- except if you're the California State legislature trying to corral the University of California, Berkeley's personal genomics walkabout offered to incoming freshmen. The state bill AB 70 was introduced in December, 2008 to encourage transparency on how school districts classify "English learners" to "proficient".* Now, the text of AB 70 the "English learners" bill has been parasitically devoured and replaced with text to impede the University of California, Berkeley's program for incoming students, known as: "On the Same Page: Bring Your Genes to Cal".

How the State Tries to Come Between Cal...and Your Genes

Like many universities, freshmen are welcomed to UC Berkeley with some thematic program. Historically that's meant they all read a book, for instance last year they read Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollan. This year they decided on a more interactive learning experience, asking incoming Freshman to spit in a cup and submit that for analysis of lactose, alcohol metabolism, and folate gene variants. The idea seemed fresh and relevant, and Berkeley went forward with it apparently without much internal debate. Certainly getting students involved in their own health can't be bad can it?

Some people actually thought it was bad, however, and eventually the state legislature got involved -- very late to the game, of course. But as the university mailed out saliva spit kits to students, AB 70 suddenly gained what seemed like unprecedented speed and "urgency". If passed, it will be "enacted immediately."

The original AB 70 proposed adding a section to the education code requiring that school districts report their criteria for assessing English proficiency. The bill languished until being amended June 24, 2010. The amended title reflected not-too subtle changes. The old sponsor and bill purposes were simply crossed out, and the new sponsor and purpose inserted so it read:

"Duvall Norby English learners. Public postsecondary education: genetic testing."

That's how an English learners bill morphed into a bill to stop UC Berkeley from teaching about genetic testing.

Legislation 101

English learners text was crossed out:

....This bill would require the department, as part of its duties in administering the English language development test, to gather from each school district that has one or more English learners the criteria that the district uses for the reclassification of a pupil from English learner to proficient in English and to summarize and report the criteria it receives...

And in its place, text warning about allowing "On The Same Page: Bring Your Genes to Cal":

• Collecting, testing and storing genetic material presents "unique challenges to protecting individual privacy".
• Medical testing "subjects" should receive "substantial" written and verbal explanation before supplying consent
• Students "may feel coerced to participate in official activities involving widespread genetic testing"
• A 2006 GAO report showed that tests are "unproven, misleading, meaningless.."
• Students could "suffer consequences later in life" because of privacy breaches.

The June 24th version demanded that the school report quarterly, all the costs of the "solicitation" so that the state of California could recoup those expenses. The trouble with that legislation was that the solicitation already happened and was funded with a gift (probably, the funding is unclear). (The state only provides Berkeley with a small percentage of its funding.) So the August 02 amended version of AB 70 struck out "prohibits" and entered "requests" instead. The August version also struck out the demand for accounting of "unsolicited requests", and replaced that for a demand to account for "legal judgements or settlements resulting from violations of the informed consent requirements".

On Different Pages

The August amendments show the state adjusting to meet the realities of the program moving forward. It's a learning experience for all. Clearly the legislature is trying to wrap its head around the project, and adjusting as needed. As is Berkeley. As are organizations who oppose the program.

The text of the bill reflects very closely the rhetoric of the Massachusetts based Council on Responsible Genetics (CRG). Their primary concern seems to be privacy, and their multiple letters to California legislators practically dictate the content of AB 70. But as they gather more information about the project, they too change their rhetoric. In their most recent letter to California legislators, the Council For Responsible Genetics joined with the ACLU, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, The Electronic Freedom Foundation and others, urging the legislators to "request a full accounting" of the "On the Same Page: Bring Your Genes to Call" program, specifically issues of conflict of interest, funding, privacy, and data confidentiality.

The Berkeley program certainly brings relevant topics to the fore, and who can challenge the importance of this? But Berkeley scientists and the Council on Responsible Genetics have stuck doggedly to their talking points. Scientists advocating the program stress the need for education about genomics, and accuse critics of being anachronistic and paternalistic. They stress individuals personal right learn genetic information. Therefore, they would argue, this is a relevant topic worthy of the attention of the program.

Certainly healthcare in America is at such a nadir that anyone with half a brain in their head who has visited a doctor lately would agree that giving individuals more information to take more ownership of their own healthcare would be great. Personal genomics could give such insight, democratize information, and benefit health consumers. But this is one (there are others) big hitch. Direct to consumer genetics testing (this is related) walks a fine line between being innocuous information and a "medical test". Bring Your Genes to Cal proponents simultaneously push the importance of the students learning about genomics - and by pushing this they get necessary support, while at the same time belittling the relevance of the tests and their results - so as not to attract unwanted attention.

Meanwhile, critics are focusing on the very issues that the University is trying to downplay. CRG insists on repeatedly labeling the Bring Your Genes to Cal tests "medical tests" in order to prompt alarm and greater scrutiny. The critics dwell on privacy, data confidentiality, and interpretation of data. To me, if genomics data is important enough that it's worth building this program around (as innocuous seeming as these variants may be), than it's important enough for the critics' issues to matter -- even if the involved scientists twist themselves into knots to avoid those discussions.

The state, for its part, is trying to respond, quickly at that, without having a clear handle on the issues. Perhaps they yearn for 2008, when AB 70 was stymied in controversy over adding a webpage to assure transparency in schools' English Learner programs.

------------------------

*AB 70 was also once a bill about state dams.

Does WikiLeaks finally show us the potential of the "World Wide Web" of Once Upon A Time? Or is it a sinister threat to our sacred institutions?

Only The Government is Qualified to Redact?

Last weekend, as everyone knows, WikiLeaks posted documents that uncover the daily dirt of the Afghanistan war. The leak is unique in its sheer volume. And notably, the information is not condensed into a seconds long news flash with insight provided by a general so as to neatly temper the shock value war-time revelations. War is ugly and complicated, as described in the many books about the Iraq war that everyone read, like Fiasco; or one I liked, Rory Stewart's The Prince of the Marshes: And Other Occupational Hazards of a Year in Iraq. But in the US wars are remote, old news, and easy to forget.

The released Wikipedia documents highlight hundreds of unsavory details about the pervasive untrustworthiness of the various "allies", the killing of civilians by wayward drones, intelligence mistakes, and small details like the attempted poisoning of an American geologist. In short, the everyday deaths, maimings, destructions and deceptions. War is war, but Assange says he hopes citizens pressure the government, and he hopes the details embarrass some generals, goad them to behave better, or derail their careers.

While Assange has his agenda, states struggle to frame the leak within theirs. Citizens have been barraged with guidance from official and unofficial sources about how much attention to pay to the deluge of unsettling news. Not much, they're instructed. At first most officials advised there was no new "news", which could mean anything, but seemed to implore: Pay no attention! Pay no attention! Which compelled WikiLeaks and news outlets to argue that indeed, it was new news, and proceed to line item the "new news" in gory detail.

So then commentators put forth a more nuanced stance. Stewart A. Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy for the United States Department of Homeland Security under George W. Bush, talked with Julian Sanchez of the Cato Institute in "Dangerous Leaks", on BloggingHeads TV today.

There was no new news, Baker said, but new details about people and places that endangered military strategy and individuals. When told by Sanchez that WikiLeaks was redacting information in 15,000 docs to prevent that sort of thing, Baker responded that WikiLeaks was inept at that task because they couldn't know which information was dangerous. WikiLeaks could only pretend to protect sources and individuals in the documents, Baker said. The government was far more qualified to know which information to redact when they released information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), but even the government made mistakes he said. In other words, pay no attention, it's not important, but it must be stopped, there are sound government procedures for this. What's one to think about that? Will anarchy break out if the public knows more via unofficial sources?

House of Critics

It's not just governments that are after Assange. Competing organizations in the "important leaked documents space" also criticize Wikipedia and the personal motives of Assange. The owner of Cryptome calls WikiLeaks' mission corrupted by money. Steven Aftergood, of Secrecy News blog, has said that WikiLeaks threatens individual liberties by disclosing documents for disclosure's sake. Other hackers have donned white hats to accuse WikiLeaks of endangering national security.

Some naysayers pick different bones. Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said:

"This is not journalism...did they write stories, talk to sources, analyze the information, go to the government for a response or put it in context? Did they do something to inform the public about what these documents show? No."

Still others accuse WikiLeaks of working under the mantle of transparency, but operating in a completely opaque fashion. Following the New Yorker's June 7th article on Assange: "No Secrets: Julian Assange's Mission for Total Transparency", one letter to the editor of The New Yorker criticized Assange: "On the surface, his ideology seems to say: Full transparency leads to greater honesty and a better global society.", the letter writer wrote, "But why then publish private church data intended for the use of its leaders?"

This specific quote, I think, refers to the release of Church of Scientology leak described in the June 7th article. But people say it often, and it could refer to any church. Let's consider. Popes, leaders of the Catholic Church, squirreled away very private church data for centuries. Only when brave victims, mostly young boys, stepped forward en masse to reveal the priests' transgressions was the destructive force of those crimes revealed. If only technology had enabled a leak earlier on.

The Sacrosanct Institutions and Freedom of Information

WikiLeaks is evading boundaries all around. You don't need the FOIA to access its cache of secret documents. The government has (at least momentarily) lost a smidgen of control. The letter to the New Yorker editor could have been referencing the church of government. It could have been referencing the church of the military, the church of hacking, or the church of journalism.

Take the church of journalism. What is "journalism" these days? Is it a useful tool for eliciting government response and context as Dalglish says? Or is journalism, due to technology and psychology research progress, more and more the public relations arm of institutions? Does it live up to its potential? Do we really need generals to put war incidents in context for us? Or as citizens, can we be enticed to be interested, and trusted as intelligent judges of how effectively our tax money is being used? Or is that a fairy tale? (Yeah, maybe, anyhoo) Moreover, isn't there just too much information for the fourth estate to efficiently parse for us?

Long ago, when the internet first came to be, some crazy people thought it would provide a new frontier for open information, would break the barriers erected by states. But ordinary citizens have always found themselves on the wrong side of information asymmetry when it came to knowing what governments are up to. WikiLeaks fantastically shows another possibility. Maybe in this new age, as Obama promised, government could indeed be transparent, participatory, and collaborative. The Obama government accomplishs its information goals. But maybe all the transparency won't all be found at sites like transparency.gov in the cloud. Maybe Open Government will be defined by citizens too.

Thoughts on Spying

It's a spy filled summer, with movies like Inception and Salt -- one really enjoyable, the other not so much -- but both filled with evil doers and secretive characters up to who knows what. Then you exit the movies, glance around, and realize the world really is up to its ears in spying. Espionage messes in Russia, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan...and everywhere else. But spying is complicated business, more complicated than figuring out than who's in what level in Inception. And more complicated than science too. Although some people spend make a career of trying to convince you global warming is a conspiracy, in the end (hopefully figurative), everyone will know that the climatologists were right. But at the "end" of spy stories, who knows?

• New Century, Old Cold War?

  Take, for example, the recent rounding up of Russian spies hunkered down for years in the US. The US hosted "spy ring" turned out to be an eclectic assortment of suburbanites working at random places like Spanish-language newspapers in New York. Then suddenly one week, to chorus of guffaws about their inefficacy, the spies were quickly swapped for Russia's release of four imprisoned Russian nationals.

  Last weekend Vladamir Putin welcomed the 10 spies from the US back to Russia, and together they sang Soviet era patriotic songs like "How The Motherland Begins." The ten must have been thrilled, having been holed up in America for so long, but the glee club welcome might have been tough for homesick Soviet spies still salted away in the US.

  The Bush era reignited US public awareness of spying, and led some people to suspect that the administration was intent on returning to the Cold War Era. The Obama administration seems to be carrying on the trend. By most media accounts the Russian spies were throwbacks from the Soviet era, except strangely without the lethal weapons on the tips of their shoes and toxic poison tipped umbrellas. The incident was pure comedy fodder.

  But were they really as bumbling as the media concluded? Now we learn that Andrey Bezrukov, aka "Donald Heathfield", who lived in Cambridges, MA, with his "spy-wife and two kids" by spies, tried to sell software to Stratfor Inc. The CEO of Stratfor said Heathfield aroused no suspicion. "'Only when the news broke," Friedman said, "did we go, uh-oh". Stratfor is a "global intelligence" firm which has a very interesting take on the Russian spy story. It may be more complicated than you think.

• Iran, Not Trading?

  Then there was the weird incident of the Iranian scientist. A bizarre web of a tale -- starting with a kidnapping in Saudia Arabia (maybe)? The kidnapped was supposedly incarcerated in DC until he somehow escaped his US captors and sought refuge at the Pakistan Embassy. Next Hillary Clinton rather woodenly explained he was "free to go" -- but 'what about those hikers'? Other strange details came out. Amiri was paid $5 million by the CIA, but couldn't take it with him back to Iran - bum deal, and was also once a CIA informant in Iran. So confusing. As an aside, Iran's nuclear program has been plagued by exploding centrifuges and equipment failures -- FT considers whether it's sabotage. Again, it may be more complicated than it appears.

• WikiLeaks and Its International Man of Mystery

  We would be remiss not to include WikiLeaks in our spy stories. Before the Afghanistan documents came out, Bradley Manning apparently contacted a former hacker via the internet and boasted about giving a slew of US military documents to WikiLeaks. Salon questions the motives of the the former hacker who turned Manning into the FBI, and day after day that thread got weirder and weirder.

  Then this weekend, WikiLeaks posted documents that uncovered the daily dirt of the Afghanistan war, released earlier to the New York Times, Der Spiegel and Guardian, who all extracted some material for stories. Everyone reacts with a different impression of the importance of the documents, with officials from the involved states -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the US, giving a whole range of variable opinions on the docs' relevance, legitimacy, and harmfulness. Many now echo what BBC's Crispin Black told Salon before the documents were released:

  "Diplomatic cables don't usually contain huge secrets but they do contain the unvarnished truth so in a sense they can be even more embarrassing than secrets."

  WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange says he hopes to embarrass some generals. He's brilliantly solidified his reputation for being elusive while showing up more and more and more. He recently appeared at a TED conference in Oxford. He was on Larry King. He apparently met several times with a New Yorker reporter sometime in the past, which led to a very long article on June 7th by Raffi Khatchadourian: "No Secrets: Julian Assange's mission for total transparency", which solidified his international man of mystery reputation. Sometimes he doesn't show up, but rumors leave rooms buzzing in anticipation, therefore he can achieve a physical presence in more than one place at a time. Now with the leak of the Afghanistan documents, he's gotten even more publicity, helped by rumors that the US government is chasing him. All choreographed with invisible and exquisite timing.

  Could it be less intriguing than it appears? I don't know. But it's riled some people up. Former Pakistani "spymaster" Hamid Gul, a retired general who the docs report has ordered roadside bombs against Nato and conspired with Afghan insurgents against the UN, says all the documents are a conspiracy by Obama to scapegoat Gul for the US failure. It must be a preemptive strike - Gul's mentioned in ~10 of ~100,000 docs - "Pure fiction", Gul says, all I do is grow mangoes and peaches and visit with my grandchildren.

• Washington Post's Own Database of "Secrets"

  The Washingon Post, for its part, pre-empted WikiLeaks hoopla with it own "database" of compiled secrets. It says that "Top Secret America" made the Yahoo! News "Top 10 Blockbuster revelations". Then conversely, the Post explained to officials and readers who complained that their data endangered Americans' safety, that all the data was in the public domain anyway.

  Perhaps less secretive than it appears? As Tim Shorrock reported here, what took them so long?' And why the alarmed reaction from government? Does the Post's stuff really cause official consternation? Who could have really been surprised? It's true that most of the Post's stuff can be extracted from places like transparency.gov with zero difficulty, motivated by just the tiniest bit of curiosity. (And for that matter, the nitty gritty aspects of war in the WikiLeaks documents are accessible in books and articles, though not all at once with the type of fanfare that makes news.) So what's the official fuss over "Top Secrets"?

Comforting The Tourists -- Secrets Make Us Safe?

Is every last bit of information worthy the label "secret"? Or is "Top Secret America" sly advertising somewhat intended to make us feel safer? Once, as a Ghanaian taxi-driver drove a group of us through Columbus Square in Manhattan, I asked about all police cars and flashing lights and commotion in the middle of the square. He replied they were there for no particular reason except "to comfort the tourists". Maybe all the excitement about "top secrets" is merely to comfort the tourists (and citizens) -- as well as entertain them when they're not captivated by spy flicks.

The BP spill in the gulf remains an unrelenting environmental and economic disaster. Oil industry technology lets us pierce deep holes in the ocean floor and extract oil for energy and profit for companies. That know-how is obviously way ahead of the know-how to avert and fix oil rig failures that impact people and the economy more frequently than they should.

Flimsy Tech, Strong Marketing

John Gapper wrote over a month ago in the Financial Times that the BP disaster could have been worse, for instance if the larger Thunder Horse rig failed. He quoted BP's website: "Everything about Thunder Horse is at or beyond the limits of the offshore industry's experience", and noted: "What once sounded impressively high-tech now sounds positively scary."

Of course, lack of "industry experience" sounds less scary today, a month and a half later, because we understand the enormity of the Deepwater Horizon mishap. Our fear has been removed by experience. Can we fathom anything worse, now that the estimated volume of gushing oil has been adjusted upward; now that plugs, top-kills, and various domes and caps have failed to stop the damage?

We don't even have a word for it. "Spill"? As in a sippy-cup of milk? Perhaps we need a new word for ~60,000 gallons a day gushing into the Gulf? Gusher's not quite right. Sound's almost celebratory, like champagne. Trivialities aside, don't we need a new system to assure that technology to contain spills doesn't extend "beyond the limits of offshore industry's experience"?

Tech Failure as Entertainment Staple?

Technological failures happen every day, we don't have blind faith in technology, despite what some say. Buildings collapse, brakes fail, cars crash. We live with this, we wear seatbelts, mandate airbags, set values on body parts. And when worse comes to worse, we get cathartic pleasure from accidents. It's true. Why is the traffic stopped on the highway for five miles back? The accident is cleared, the bodies are gone, but people need to gawk at the damage on the cars. What can't be gotten in person we get on TV. Any botoxed, pancake make-up plastered announcer who manages to contort their face into an emotion while describing an airplane crash, a fire, or a kitten with two faces steals our attention.

A little hormone surge, then back to the routine until the next catastrophic high. We depend on those hormone surges like some probably depend on prayer, to get us through the mundane day. A little spilt milk souring someone else's life is great entertainment. The difference with this spill is that we're usually free, after a few minutes of rubbernecking, to drive away from the scene, catecholamine rush satisfied.

We crave that. And so the media finally goaded President Obama to say "kick-ass" on TV -- to pretend-put BP in it's place and give us a little surge. True, talking about ass-kicking will never prevent the next catastrophe, but the grinding negotiations of lawmaking never provides an adrenaline boost. We champion people talking about change, but that's it. Unfortunately, Obama's presidential version of "kick-ass" didn't satisfy. Fortunately Congress can always step up to some ass-kick rhetoric theatre for America.

Weak Oversight of Inevitable Failure?

The company face-off with congress suits business too. Companies seem used to enduring public lashings, as long as their business goes on as usual. CEO's probably have it written into their contracts: "You will appear before Congress for reprimanding should the business of risking lives for profits be revealed, and your job is to exhibit the full range of arrogance and chagrin:" (Salary: $27.2 million).

Dragging bank CEOs before Congress served this purpose earlier this year. And notice how quick we lost interest in the "regulatory loopholes", ensconced as we are in the current crisis.

The hearings also give oil company executives a chance to argue for less regulation right off the bat. The BP technology failure, as inevitable as it was, sent shudders through all the regulation-allergic oil companies. This week executives energetically backstroked away from the flaming BP rig oil gusher. Rex Tillerson (Exxon) described it as an "unprecedented" event, due to a "level of risk...beyond industry norms." that "should not occur". John Watson (Chevron) called it a "single incident" and a "preventable tragedy", due to "failure to operate with high standards".

The Exxon and Chevron CEOs offered lawmakers all sorts of reasons why the BP accident wouldn't happen in their companies, because of "documented standards", "best practices", "proprietary technology", "stop-work authority", and "time to do things right or not at all". Watson said "safe" or "safety" no less than 25 times in his brief.

Of Walruses...and Little People

And about those "documented standards"? We saw how companies share in their contingency plans the phone numbers of the same dead experts, and descriptions of how to clean walruses not seen in the Gulf since the Ice Age. Kudos to Congress for pointing all this out with great theatre. But shouldn't someone be reading these plans before the failure? That walrus thing would be pretty easy to spot. Demonstrating how little relevance these showdowns have, even that embarrassing fact didn't move Exxon's CEO, who said: "It's unfortunate that walruses were included". Because...if they hadn't been included nobody would have noticed that there was no plan at all? Accchhh...the insouciance.

Once impressive technology always looks fatally flimsy after failure, like the feebly blinking red 12:00. We're used to technology achievements -- they yield tremendous bragging rights. We're also used to technology failures. Cars crashes happen and when they do we know how to mop up. Spills occur, as in the Niger Delta and frequent gushers across the world. So shouldn't the standards and contingency plans be evaluated as part and parcel with the technology -- ahead of time? There's more to technology then a deep a hole we can dig for ourselves.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced today that it was adding bisphenol A (BPA) to its list of "chemicals of concern", and will require testing to assess BPA's effects on the environment. A recent review paper by Tufts University researchers, published in Environmental Health Perspectives reinforces the need for concern about BPA exposure, which is widespread in the population. According to the article, public agencies in the US and Europe perennially underestimate the risks of bisphenol A.

While the FDA regulates the food packaging by which most individuals would be exposed to BPA, the EPA regulates the chemical's effect on the environment. The chemical's effect on the environment is neither trivial nor inconsequential, as we've previously noted. But the doubt about whether BPA should be regulated continues.

In "The Politics of Everyday Bisphenol A", Acronym Required looked at the different approach Canada took to banning BPA recently, compared to the United States' more reluctant stance on regulation. The most obvious difference underlying the policies of the two countries seems to be the more minor economic interest Canada has in BPA, compared to the US.

However, in banning BPA last year, Canada also considered the input of its environmental agency, Environment Canada, in addition to Health Canada. Canada's Minister Baird noted at the time: "When it comes to Canada's environment, you can't put a price on safety". Of course, the rhetoric of the Canadian Prime Minister belies an inconsistent environmental stance, illustrated in the country's other environmental activities, like the destructive but lucrative Alberta oil sands industries.

But notably, in contrast to Canada, the US BPA policy has depended more on human health data. These results are more difficult to obtain because you can't test a potentially toxic chemical like BPA on human subjects. This ethical consideration leads confusion about the strength of the data, as the chemical lobby goes on and on that rat and mice data don't predict health effects in humans. There's some truth in the logic of their statements, but their forceful arguments obscure data on deleterious results of BPA exposure that are disturbing and do have implications for public health.

Importantly, their arguments make politicians go all limp. Thus weakened, politicians generally cave when faced lawsuits against their proposed regulations by the same lobbies and plastics manufacturers, which in turn secures the permanence of BPA in our bloodstreams.

Environmental effects are easier to test -- dead tadpoles in brackish water and such are easier to quantify. Not to say that this is the EPA's goal, not at all.

In addition to listing BPA as a "chemical of concern", the EPA will:

• Require information on concentrations of BPA in surface water, ground water, and drinking water to determine if BPA may be present at levels of potential concern.
• Require manufacturers to provide test data to assist the agency in evaluating its possible impacts, including long-term effects on growth, reproduction, and development in aquatic organisms and wildlife.
• Use EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) program to look for ways to reduce unnecessary exposures, including assessing substitutes, while additional studies continue.
• ..Continue to evaluate the potential disproportionate impact on children and other sub-populations through exposure from non-food packaging uses.

The EPA has decided to call this exercise "scrutiny" to assuage the environmental doubters in the crowd, as in "EPA to Scrutinize Environmental Impact of Bisphenol A". On cue, American Chemistry Council (ACC) president Cal Dooley reminded everyone he speaks for that the EPA isn't proposing regulation. And right he is. The EPA is talking about looking at more data. Dooley said in a statement that he looked forward to a "productive exchange" with the agency, code perhaps for a collective chemical industry mutiny against regulation? Stay tuned.

"Did the EPA drop bisphenol A from the list in eight days because of lobbyists? First of all, if the EPA or any government agency reversed a decision like this in eight days it would be a grand miracle on the scale of the Genesis seven day creation myth. Or at least worthy of an Olympic gold medal. Really..."

Post Updated 2/19/10 to include new references.

The EPA, Skewered For First TSCA Action in Decades:

On December 30th, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted action plans for four chemicals: phthalates, perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), and short-chain chlorinated paraffins. (No really! It gets better :-) ) An action plan signals that the EPA intends possible regulation because the chemical poses a hazard. Chemical companies complained bitterly. The EPA also listed two more chemical action plans in the development process, for benzidine dyes/pigments, and bisphenol A. Scientific American commented at the time:

"This is a big deal because it is the first time since TSCA was passed in 1976 that the EPA has made such a move. To date, the agency has only successfully used TSCA to restrict or ban five of the 80,000-plus chemicals on its inventory"

However this week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel criticized the EPA's December chemical action plans, questioning why bisphenol A wasn't on the top four list: The EPA's "move" was "drawing suspicion", explains the paper:

"the head of the Environmental Protection Agency had been talking tough in one speech after another last fall about the need to protect the public from such chemicals, particularly BPA...but when the agency's list came out Dec. 30, identifying four chemicals that would face stricter labeling and reporting requirements, BPA was not among them..."

Writes MSJ: "Critics say the Dec. 22 meeting might have been why BPA was dropped from the top of the agency's list".

BPA is on the agency's list. But to the Journal-Sentinel's question, why is it not first up in the most recent round of action plans? Did lobbyists pressure OMB/OIRA to change EPA's stance on Dec. 22?

Now, Suddenly, The EPA Turns on A Dime?

The paper cites as the deciding factor a meeting of plastic and chemical lobbyists with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA):

"Eight days after a meeting between chemical industry lobbyists and Obama administration officials, federal regulators put off including bisphenol A on a list of dangerous chemicals that would be subject to stricter regulation"

The Center For Progressive Reform also forwarded the idea that the EPA was influenced to remove BPA from its chemical action plans list in a blog posted January 22:

"on December 22, just before EPA was about to release its first four chemical action plans, activists from American Chemistry Council and representatives of a major BPA producer met with officials at OIRA to plead the case for BPA's safety."

Did the EPA drop bisphenol A from the list in eight days? First of all, if the EPA or any government agency reversed a decision like this in eight days it would be a grand miracle on the scale of the Genesis seven day creation myth. Or at least worthy of an Olympic gold medal. Really.

But, lets look back to last fall, to a much quoted speech given by Lisa Jackson to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. The MSJ quoted the speech in their article. At the time, we wrote in "The EPA Speaks To Me" that Jackson's speech, like the president's sweeping public orations, promised something for everyone:

"The more I read, the more Jackson's speech looked like a veritable public relations jambalaya. She spoke to those committed to wetlands, spotted owls, to asthma sufferers, climate change, to those concerned about coal and gas emissions, to the Clean Air Act, to trash incineration, dioxins, pesticides, green chemistry, research, unions, medical professionals, public health groups, industry, environmentalism, to those who want jobs, fast food packaging, to unborn children, African Americans, Native Americans, Latinos and postal workers, as well as everyone who emails public comments to the EPA or who's concerned about health care or health..."

I commented at the time that her speech was clearly a "marketing tool and conversation generator but not a public policy statement." We could get mad about a lot of things in her speech, I'm sure, if we took it as public policy commitment.

If Only Talking Made Policy

Of course, in that speech Jackson did mention bisphenol A, saying: "Every few weeks, we read about new potential threats: Bisphenol A, or BPA - a chemical that can affect brain development and has been linked to obesity and cancer..." Or, as the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel sees it: "The first chemical on her list: BPA." But, writes MSJ: "In the end, though, her agency settled on four other chemicals to target first for the action plans." (emphasis ours)

So as MSJ says, it's true, "first" Jackson did mention BPA. Then she said "pthalates", then "dioxins, then "lead" (each once). One of the Journal-Sentinel's sources labeled EPA's stance as "curious". I'm as cynical as anyone, but lets look at Jackson's rhetorical choices.

San Francisco was the first in the nation to attempt action on bisphenol A and phthalates. Jackson was at the San Francisco Commonwealth Club talking to (I guess) some commoners -- not chemists or policy wonks. "Bisphenol A" and "pthalates", "dioxin", and "lead" would be recognizable and appreciated by the crowd. True, she didn't explicitly mention "polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) including the commercial versions of pentabromodiphenyl ether (c-pentaBDE), octabromodiphenyl ether (c-octaBDE), and decabromodiphenyl ether (c-decaBDE)" -- the flame retardants in the first batch of four EPA action plans. But had she, the crowd, eyes glazing over, probably would have slumped into trance instead of thinking the EPA was their friend and ally. Whether you view this as PR or marketing or just common sense, its elementary communication. And as an aside -- why no concern about the EPA's omission of lead or dioxin in the first batch of action plans?

Sept. 29th: EPA Announces Four Chemical "Action Plans". Sept. 30th: Names Chemicals

As for the EPA's choice of which chemicals would be targeted first, on September 29, 2009 , the EPA issued a press release" right after Jackson's speech, announcing its intention to issue four action plans in December:

"The EPA has identified an initial list of chemicals for possible risk management action and anticipates completing and posting an initial set of four action plans in December. It will complete and post additional chemical action plans in four-month intervals thereafter."

On September 30, 2009, the EPA issued another press release, naming the four chemicals of top interest, the same ones that it produced action plans for in December:

"EPA today announced a series of actions on four chemicals raising serious health or environmental concerns...The agency's actions represent its determination to use its authority under the existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to the fullest extent possible...In addition to phthalates, the chemicals EPA is addressing today are short-chain chlorinated paraffins, polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and perfluorinated chemicals, including PFOA.

So in a September 30th press release, the EPA named the same four chemicals that were in the December 30, 2009 action plan announcement. Then did the American Chemistry Council (ACC) really sway the EPA's BPA decision in a meeting December 22nd with OMB/OIRA, eight days before the EPA's action plan announcement?

The Chemical Lobby, BPA & The EPA: Economics Factors?

To me, aside from the overly conspiratorial premise of the article, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and CPR valuably point the public's attention to some enviable industry access. The ACC sent five representatives to meet with four OMB,OIRA staff; and SABIC, a Saudi BPA manufacturer, sent two. The ACC apparently sent a letter requesting the meeting dated November 3rd. This is news: If you're a chemical lobby group or a Saudi BPA manufacturer, you can get a meeting with OMB/OIRA in a month and a half.

ACC also submitted a slim bibliography(.pdf) of research sources. The ACC submissions show the industry's dedication to a relentlessly one-sided messaging on chemical safety.

Six of fifteen studies in the bibliography have ACC's Steve Hentges (meeting attendee and ACC lobby spokesperson, who has relentlessly messaged about BPA safety) listed as the senior author (not unbiased). Three industry related studies intend to prove that BPA degrades quickly, which is an important criteria for EPA action plans. At least four other studies with various aims are authored by groups sponsored by plastics, BPA or chemical foundations. It's true, as the MSJ writes, most of the studies authors have industry affiliations. There are hundreds of other studies to choose from which wouldn't bolster the ACC's arguments one tiny little bit. (Although to be fair, the ACC is a chemical lobby group -- not an unbiased journalist, a point I'd hope the EPA recognizes)

But the ACC included one study from Ryan et al published in Toxicological Sciences (Online October, 2009), that is an EPA study conducted by EPA employees. This study concludes that low-dose bisphenol A does not alter puberty, fertility, or anatomy and sexual behavior in rats, compared to the estrogen control. Several groups dispute this study because, for one, the strain of rat is not as sensitive to low-dose estrogen" (.PDF Update 02/19/10). However the study's sponsoring author has disputed their claims (which are longstanding) to Trevor Butterworth of Stats.org, which has been doing PR on behalf of the bisphenol A industry. We previously discussed Stats.org's role in several posts.

If anything might dissuade the EPA from acting on BPA it would be its own studies (which they didn't need the ACC to highlight.) The senior author on the study, L. Earl Gray Jr., also testified before the EPA in 2008, emphasizing that his level of "concern" (an agency measure of potential harm) about bisphenol A exposure was less that his level of concern for phthalates exposure. Industry groups have touted Ryan's and Gray's work. If the Ryan and Gray's study methodology is in question, no activist has been too public about it (Update 02/19/10: A letter in Toxicological Sciences published 02/17/10 explains the problem with rat strain.) Perhaps more media focus should be placed here, on the EPA's own study.

The ACC letter requesting the meeting asks for chemical industry participation in the EPA decision making process (a request that seems rather unnecessary given the easy access industry does have). The letter also asks EPA to "be sensitive to the potential and foreseeable negative effect on the marketplace...the market impact on bisphenol A demonstrates this is a serious and real concern." Of course this is the primary goal of ACC, to urge the EPA not to impact any one of 80,000 chemicals' markets.

The EPA, in contrast, has said that its priority is to "review all chemicals against safety standards that are based solely on considerations of risk - not economics or other factors." (emphasis ours). It will be interesting to see how the EPA decides on bisphenol A, and whether its considerations to "risk" will include industry consideration to economic factors - or not. However just the fact that OMB and EPA were willing to sit with the ACC lobby group shows a willingness to listen to their (always) economic arguments.

The EPA -- Total Pushover?

I don't think I'm particularly naive in these matters, we've been following industry influence on policy for a while, especially BPA, which we've been following since 2005. We've specifically written about EPA apparently backing off of regulation under pressure from OIRA/OMB several times before.

But I'd be surprised if the EPA turned their intentions for BPA around based on this meeting. First, it appears from their press releases that they had already concluded back in September which four chemicals were first up for action plans. The idea that they would be so swayed is practically absurd, given the transparently, almost lazily, self-interested documents submitted by industry. Somehow I have more confidence in this EPA then to think they changed action plans based on those almost disrespectful pleas. But they do, now, have their own scientists saying that BPA isn't as dangerous as phthalates.

Clearly the EPA is not quite committed to regulating BPA as activists want. But it has put $30 million towards EPA research. It's also conducting its own studies. Hundreds of science studies provide evidence that BPA is harmful, but there are enough impacts from EPA decisions on industry that the agency needs to continue its BPA investigation. However, consider dioxins, another chemical the EPA mentioned in its Commonwealth Club speech. Dioxins are proven to be carcinogenic, a far more damning research finding than has to date been applied to BPA, but the EPA is still struggling to contain their use. On BPA, I'd be the first to say that there's enough research, as would many states and communities. But federal policy-making is not science. So is it more than poppycock to suggest that the EPA was singularly pressured by one ACC meeting to change its mind on BPA?

Bisphenol A, Trees on Mars, and Riveting Headlines

Headlines can be deceiving, as well all know. But we often fall for them anyway. "Are Those Trees on Mars?" asked FoxNews and 150 other news outlets last week. So I squinted at the photo, trying to imagine how those could possibly be trees...maybe if a small city like Le Mars, Iowa shipped all the old Christmas trees collected on January 8th to Le Other Mars, instead of chipping them?

A fool I was, but you can't imagine my disappointment when the article attached to the NASA photo explained that there were No Trees On Mars, only dark sand illuminated differently than the surrounding carbon dioxide ice(1) -- (Tricky editors! - 'HA, made you look'). I guess readers' attention was elsewhere last week because closer to home, more subtly, but equally misleading, news headlines announced: The FDA "reverses" its position on bisphenol A (BPA), the FDA "backtracks" on BPA, the FDA advises consumers to "limit exposure" to BPA.

These headlines seemed like real news, since the FDA has for years faiiled to come out with either actions or public statements reflecting the growing research evidence for BPA toxicity. During the Bush administration the glaring gap between the FDA's position and BPA research propelled scientists to publicly criticized the relationship between the FDA and the industries it was supposed to be regulating. Acronym Required wrote about the fraught regulatory environment in the FDA vis-à-vis BPA, in "Scientists Criticize FDA Methods on BPA", in "Conflict of Interest in the FDA?", in "FDA Panel Offers Corrections to BPA Draft", in "Bisphenol A, The FDA, Industry -- Whassup?", and others.

Given the FDA's lackluster BPA regulation history, plus the fact that BPA is almost a household word, the newest headlines on BPA and the FDA attracted everyone's attention. The New York Times listed its story "F.D.A. Concerned About Substance in Food Packaging", as one of the "most e-mailed" articles one day. But underneath the headlines, what did the stories really report?

FDA -- Aging Cheerleader?

Despite the headlines, the FDA announced no "guidelines", and no new news. The LA Times quoted a statement from FDA Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein under the title "FDA issues BPA guidelines". "For the present", Sharfstein said", the FDA does support the use of baby bottles with BPA.'" (emphasis ours)

So in essence, the FDA has offered the same counsel for years, ever since it started studying BPA. In 1995 for instance, FDA scientists found that BPA migrated from heated plastic containers. The agency remained unalarmed. In 1997 the FDA began pondering how to change regulation to reflect evidence that endocrine disruptors altered physiology at low doses -- but barely flinched.

In 1999 several consumer groups, environmental safety groups, and scientists, petitioned the FDA to ban BPA in plastic baby bottles, because research then showed without a doubt that the chemical could leach out of polycarbonate, and indicated that BPA caused sex organ problems for male babies of exposed pregnant mice. At the time, the FDA deployed Dr. George Pauli to quell rising consumer concerns and Pauli assured families that polycarbonate bottles didn't leach under 'everyday' conditions, only at high temperatures; infant formulas required only mild heating, he said. (Although, alarmingly, parents typically microwaved the bottles.)

Now, over a decade later, despite dozens more studies, the FDA is still equivocating on baby bottles, although bottles present one of the riskiest sources of BPA because of babies' vulnerability to endocrine disruptors during development.

The FDA's statement becomes all the more difficult to swallow when you know that all on their own, without any encouragement from the agency, manufacturers voluntarily pulled polycarbonate bottles for babies and adults off the shelves.

The FDA did manage to bring its assessment -- that there is "some concern" about BPA health risks -- in line with the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) assessment. Although this is no small feat given the FDA's history, the agency didn't do much else, despite delaying this announcement three times.

From the FDA website, here's what the FDA committed to:

• "supporting industry actions" to stop making BPA containing baby bottles
• "faciliting the development" of BPA alternatives for formula cans
• "supporting efforts" to replace BPA in food can linings

Such mealy-mouthed statements give the impression that the FDA has little more persuasive authority than Acronym Required. The agency also said it would work with other agencies like the National Toxicology Program (NTP) in the NIEHS/NIH, and with foreign governments (legislators have aggressively questioned the FDA why it hasn't taken action when the Canada has banned BPA).

What Should Consumers Think?

The FDA is also seeking "external input" on the "science surrounding BPA", and will solicit "further public comment". Acronym Required commented on public comment periods used by agencies before. We wouldn't want to appear cynical in saying you can never have too much "public comment" or assume that the FDA is using the comment period to stall regulatory action. But since the FDA is now working with the National Toxicology Program in the NIH (NTP), it could review the numerous public comments solicited by the NTP during its assessments of the chemical in February, 2006; April, 2007; November, 2007; and April, 2008. (2)

The FDA is also "supporting a shift to a more robust regulatory framework for oversight of BPA". The FDA explains that a 40 year rule limits the FDA's ability to regulate BPA (as a food additive). The FDA can regulate new substances under a 2000 rule, but that doesn't help with BPA. So the agency will "encourage manufacturers to voluntarily submit a food contact notification for their currently marketed uses of BPA-containing materials." This is interesting because for years the FDA has been researching BPA and has declined to regulate the chemical because the agency found the science unconvincing; for some reason it hasn't brought a lot attention to its legal inabilities to regulate.

Does the FDA's latest announcement clarify its previous confusing position? What should consumers do? As my favorite headline, by "Beforeitsnews.com" byline has it: "It's in Your Urine But Is It Safe?".

More to the point, what should citizens do that they haven't done already? They've stopped buying polycarbonate, so much so that manufacturers have pulled bottles off the shelves, they've sued, they've urged local and state ordinances. By all measures, consumers have made the most credible effort to regulate BPA.

The FDA -- Nudging Itself Out of a Job? Drowning Itself In the Bathtub?

Other non-governmental organizations have responded with none of the ambiguity of the FDA. For instance spokespeople from the Breast Cancer Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Consumers Union, Clean New York, Center for Health Environment & Justice, and others, all urge the FDA to ban the chemical.

Even the National Council of Churches offers a suggestion for the FDA, saying, "As we celebrate the Christmas season, we are reminded of Jesus' commitment to those in poverty. We hope that the FDA will take measures to ensure that canned food is BPA-free through the use of safe alternatives in the future."

The FDA has been researching the chemical for over a decade. Their most recent statement followed delays -- not just three delays, but years of delays. Naturally the FDA, along with the CDC and NIH will support further research, in addition to supporting a new regulatory framework. The research will add to the already substantial body of research showing BPA dangers. And I guess that's how it is. The FDA is obviously hesitant to impact a multi-billion dollar industry, so the research needs to be far more conclusive than, say, if you were putting a potentially profitable pharmaceutical drug on the market.

In the meantime, as the FDA maintains relevancy by "supporting", "facilitating", and "encouraging" -- cities, towns and states across the US will continue to be at the forefront of 'patchwork' BPA regulation, pushing manufacturers to use alternatives.

--------------------------------

¹ From NASA: "At that time, dark sand on the interior of Martian sand dunes became more and more visible as the spring Sun melted the lighter carbon dioxide ice. When occurring near the top of a dune, dark sand may cascade down the dune leaving dark surface streaks -- streaks that might appear at first to be trees standing in front of the lighter regions, but cast no shadows."

² As a side note, the progression of public comments is interesting because it also shows growing awareness of BPA. In 2006 the only public comment was from the American Plastics Council. By 2008 almost 50 individuals and agencies commented.