With the State of the Union coming up, I’ve been wondering whether, or how, President Obama might address the Plan B fiasco I blogged about here. After all, Obama has addressed science issues in his previous State of the Union addresses. And, in his inaugural address, he pledged to “restore science to its rightful place.” More importantly, he entered office promising the most transparent administration in history and vowing that, unlike previous administrations, he and his appointees would “not suppress or alter scientific or technological findings and conclusions” for political gain. But those promises were forgotten or ignored as soon as they were made.

From Obama’s March 2009 decision to fund only politically favorable types of human embryo research to his administration’s Plan B birth control decision last month, he has shown that he is every bit as willing to politicize science when it’s expedient as earlier presidents have been. The highly politicized December 7 decision by Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to over-ride a decision by Food and Drug Administration scientists to approve the Plan B emergency contraceptive for over-the-counter use has gotten plenty of attention. But for science policy experts, that case of politicized science came as no surprise given the administration’s willingness to subvert the advice of scientific experts on any number of critical issues.

Just to give a couple of examples: White House Energy Czar Carol Browner improperly altered a scientific report on oil spill remediation in order to support a ban on off-shore drilling. Then there was the administration’s rejection of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste depository as Nuclear Regulatory Commission scientists accused senior administration officials of politicizing their work. And there are scores of other cases — ranging from the significant to the petty — in which the Obama Administration has chosen to subvert scientific integrity for political gain.

According to a July 2010 investigation by the Los Angeles Times, one organization that represents scientific whistleblowers has been “getting complaints from government scientists now at the same rate [it was] during the Bush administration.” And because the Obama administration routinely ignores public disclosure requirements and Freedom Of Information Act requests, who knows how many more cases of politicization have not yet been revealed?

I would rather like to see the President explain how to square this behavior with his public boasting. So, here’s a challenge. Obama should take the opportunity at this State of the Union Address to own up to his presidency’s failings on scientific integrity, and re-commit his administration to reject the politicization of science. And this time, let us all hope he means it.

As expected, the European Court for Justice — the EU’s highest court — has ruled that the EU’s plan to charge foreign airlines for their emissions through purchasing carbon permits complies with international law and doesn’t threaten foreign countries’ sovereignty.

As of January, aircraft landing or taking off from EU airports will be assessed carbon emission fees. (See yesterday’s OpenMarket for more background.) The carbon trading scheme is opposed by major economies, including the U.S., Japan, India, China, Brazil, Russia, and many others.

But that didn’t deter the EU or the high court. After all, the Court noted in its opinion, airlines can choose whether to use EU airports:

It is only if the operators of such aircraft choose to operate a commercial air route arriving at or departing from an airport situated in the EU that they are subject to the emissions trading scheme.

It has been reported that Canada and other countries will continue the battle through other channels, notably the UN’s International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal.

And, as CEI pointed out yesterday, trade retaliation is a likely outcome.  Already Fitch’s rating agency is taking a dim view of what this means for the ailing airline industry:

We believe threats of trade retaliation over the EU’s cap and trade system will pose growing threats to aviation market access in both developed and emerging markets next year. The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed a bill prohibiting compliance with the ETS by U.S. airlines, and diplomatic efforts to roll back the implementation of the scheme will likely intensify in the new year.

Retaliation may be largely rhetorical in the early stages, but an absence of progress next year may trigger protectionist responses, especially from emerging market governments. Moves to restrict market access through slot allocations and route authorities could have a material economic impact during a precarious time for the global economy, when airline revenue growth is coming under renewed pressure. . . .

We agree with the industry’s assessment that ETS [emissions trading scheme] carbon permit costs will effectively serve as a tax on the world’s airlines, raising operating costs on all European flights at a time when emissions charges are unlikely to be passed on to customers in the form of higher fares.

So, the Court is its arrogance is willing to open the gates of protectionism, tax the world’s airlines, and  further weaken the airline industry — and ultimately harm the fragile world economy. The Grinch that stole Christmas.

The U.S. sent a strong letter to the European Union warning them that the EU’s airline emissions trading scheme — set to start in January 2012 — should be halted or postponed. If not, the letter from U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said, “. . . we will be compelled to take appropriate action.” According to the Financial Times (registration required), 42 other countries, including major economic powerhouses, such as China and Brazil, signed onto the letter, which seemed to be timed just before the EU’s highest court renders its decision.

On Wednesday the EU’s Court of Justice is expected to rule in favor of the EU’s plan to charge airlines — domestic and foreign — for their carbon emissions. The EU scheme would cover aviation in its controversial — and collapsing — cap-and-trade system for reducing carbon emissions. All planes landing or taking off in the EU would be forced to pay for their emissions, whether those were emitted over EU airspace or not.

Expanding the failing carbon trading system during a period of failing economies seems to be an act of self-flagellation on the part of the EU in the name of environmentalism. Or maybe they are hoping to bring other countries down to a “level playing field” of wasting billions of dollars that would flow into their coffers. A 2009 study by Matt Sinclair of the UK’s Taxpayers’ Alliance estimated that from its introduction in 2005 through 2008, the EU’s carbon trading scheme has cost European consumers €93 billion. Just last month The Australian reported that the Swiss bank UBS had issued a study stating:

. . . the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year.

In a damning report to clients, UBS Investment Research said that had the €210bn the European ETS had cost consumers been used in a targeted approach to replace the EU’s dirtiest power plants, emissions could have been reduced by 43 per cent “instead of almost zero impact on the back of emissions trading.”

If the EU stands by its plan to exert control over airlines of other countries and to charge them for emissions, many have argued that it would attack the sovereignty of other countries, destroy the international legal system in place for airlines – the Convention on International Civil Aviation – put onerous economic burdens on airlines, and raise the cost of international travel and delivery services.

Retaliation would seem inevitable, which could plunge the fragile world economy into a destructive trade war.

President Obama ran on a platform of transparency. He praised whistleblowers. “Such acts of courage and patriotism,” he said, “should be encouraged rather than stifled.” He was intensely critical of the Bush administration that “ignored public disclosure rules.” The president and his staff have both said, “This is the most transparent administration in the history of our country.” Yet his administration has been even more secretive and hostile toward public disclosure than the previous. He has cracked down on whistleblowers (and the journalists who they leak to) more than any other administration in history. He has brought nearly double (5) the number of indictments against whistleblowers than all previous administrations combined (3), and is currently working on another.

On top of this war on whistleblowers, the president has fought Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. “Two years into its pledge to improve government transparency,” the Associated Press reports, “the Obama administration handled fewer requests for federal records from citizens, journalists, companies and others last year even as significantly more people asked for information.” In November, Obama’s Justice Department proposed a rule that would allow them to lie about the existence of documents that were of national security concern. Last month, CEI’s Chris Horner called the administration the “most secretive ever,” and listed many ways in which under Obama, FOIA requests have been thwarted in the most underhanded ways.

Today, Horner has reported new outrages in Obama’s transparency war. He writes that “the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Criminal Division, is working with United Kingdom police to pursue the leaker of the 2009 and 2011 ‘Climategate’ emails. I have learned that last week DOJ sent a search-and-seizure letter to the host of three climate-change ‘skeptic’ blogs. Last night, UK police raided a blogger’s home and removed computers and equipment.” He continues:

The leaked records derailed “cap-and-trade” legislation in the U.S. and, internationally, as well as talks for a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The emails and computer code were produced with taxpayer funds and held on taxpayer-owned computers both in the US and the UK, and all were subject to the UK Freedom of Information Act, the U.S. Freedom of Information Act and state FOIA laws.

They also were being unlawfully withheld in both the UK (by the University of East Anglia) and the U.S. (Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including stonewalling me for two years, and three other requesters for longer).

The hunt involving U.S. and UK law enforcement agencies is now escalating. On Wednesday night UK time, six detectives with the UK police (Norfolk Police Department) raided the home of at least one blogger, removing his equipment to look for clues to the identity of leaker “FOIA 2011.”

On December 9, DOJ sent a preservation letter under 18 U.S.C 2703(f) to the publication platform (website host) WordPress. This authority authorizes the government to request an Internet Service Provider (ISP) to preserve all records of a specific account for 90 days while the feds work on a warrant.

Norfolk PD affirmed to the subject of at least one of their raids that this international law enforcement hunt is for the leaker, meaning not for those whose acts the leaker exposed by making public emails containing admissions in their own words.

View the whole article here.

I didn’t have a chance to write about it then, but a few weeks back the Food and Drug Administration denied a citizen petition submitted by environmental activists asking the agency to forbid the “sub-therapeutic” use of certain antibiotics in food animals. The petition — initially filed in 2005, and fundamentally identical to one submitted in 1999 and rejected in 2001 — argued that using antibiotics for growth promotion, rather than to treat infected animals, contributes to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten human health.

The issue is a complicated one, with serious implications for medical treatment and consumer well-being more broadly. We know that development by human pathogens of resistance to medically important antibiotics poses serious public health concerns. And, although a clear link between animal antibiotics use and human disease has not been proven, there are good theoretical reasons to believe, and some real world evidence suggesting, that it does — or at least could — occur.

Nevertheless, I would still argue that FDA made the right call, but for an incomplete reason. In response to both the 1999 and 2005 petitions, the agency essentially said that going through the formal legal process to revoke the approvals for a drug is intensive, time consuming, and a poor use of FDA resources. And because the agency already monitors the development of resistance and has both nominally voluntary and explicitly mandatory programs in place to restrict uses that may pose realistic threats to human health, FDA argued that beginning the revocation process isn’t worth it.

I would further argue, though, that the agency simply does not have sufficient information on which to base a decision to revoke the approvals in question, but that it should begin a less formal investigation to shed some light on the matter. The agency has never before compared the risks that arise from animal antibiotics uses to those that would arise from restricting them. But doing so should be mandatory before any bans or further restrictions are put in place.

The use of antibiotics in animals is only one factor (and a small one at that) in the emergence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens, and it contributes far less to the development of resistance than does misuse among human patients. More importantly, though, the use of antimicrobial drugs in food-producing animals delivers substantial benefits for both animal and human health. Even the often criticized sub-therapeutic uses of these drugs contribute to reduced pathogen loads in animal-derived foods and have a positive impact on human safety. The question that few have even bothered to ask, and that the scientific community has not yet answered is whether, on balance, forbidding sub-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock would do more good than harm. There is good, though by no means conclusive, reason to believe the answer is no.

Generally, even when antibiotic-resistant bacteria are present in livestock, the likelihood of human exposure is remote, in part because risk management strategies to minimize and contain resistant pathogens have been implemented throughout the food chain. But, even when human consumers are exposed to resistant bacteria, the effect of the drug-resistance is typically inconsequential. General intestinal enteritis caused by Salmonella, for example, is rarely treated with antibiotics, leaving little opportunity for a therapeutic failure. And, in other cases where antibiotic treatment is indicated, bacteria that are resistant to one or more antibiotics remain sensitive to others. While not zero, the risk of a treatment failure in human patients arising from the development of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in food animals is quite low (See here, here, here, and here).

But is it worth tolerating even a small risk merely for the benefit of cheaper food? Some would argue “no.” The New York Times, for example, editorialized that rejecting the petitions was “a bad decision that runs counter to the F.D.A.’s own research.” And “The drugs make the animals grow faster, but their overuse increases the likelihood of antibiotic-resistant pathogens.” But posing the question that way ignores other important benefits.

Consumers benefit from lower prices, to be sure. But humans also derive health benefits from the presence of safer and healthier livestock animals. Sub-therapeutic antibiotics use helps to control and reduce the spread of a number of zoonotic diseases, and it is associated with a generalized reduction in health problems in the animals in which they are used. Carcasses from slaughtered animals not treated with antibiotics are more likely to be contaminated with human pathogenic microorganisms than those from treated animals (See here and here). And, because sub-therapeutic antibiotics use increases feed conversion efficiency, it lets farmers produce more food with fewer animals and less feed, which has significant environmental benefits — including, but not limited to, a need for less land in raising livestock and animal feed crops, and less waste from the animals.

Furthermore, experience in foreign countries that have banned or heavily restricted sub-therapeutic use is decidedly mixed. So, it is not clear whether a ban in the U.S. would result in less resistant bacteria or improved human health outcomes. Denmark, for example, began restricting sub-therapeutic uses in 1995. But over the following decade, while resistance to some antibiotics decreased among some pathogens in some livestock animal species, resistance among other pathogens to other antibiotics in other animals rose (See here and here). And there is little evidence that the occurrence of antibiotic-resistant pathogens in humans was affected at all.

Similar results were seen following the European Union-wide restriction on sub-therapeutic uses. “The expected decrease in the incidence of resistant human pathogens did not occur. Instead, prevalence of many resistant human pathogens increased, in some cases up to 49 percent of the pre-ban incidence.”

There is no doubt that the rise in antibiotic resistant bacteria is a serious problem. And it may even be wise to ban the use of new antibiotic classes — or existing classes that are considered antibiotics of last resort — in livestock, or at least to postpone their use for a period of years following their introduction. But it’s not remotely clear that consumers would experience net positive benefits from a ban on essentially all sub-therapeutic uses.

Regulatory war has been waged against another job-creating sector of the American economy. The U.S. Department of Labor has set forth new proposals restricting children under the age of 16 that are not children of the farmers from working in the agriculture industry. Should the DOL really be confident enough with the reduced unemployment rate from 9 percent to 8.6 percent to comfortably cut job opportunities for the prospective future farmers of America?

Current labor laws allow children under 16 to work when they aren’t in school.  Children of farmers may be employed by their parents at any age at any time in any occupation on a farm owned or operated by their parents. But many children work on farms that are either owned by a grandparent, uncle or aunt. Also, if parents do not have full ownership of the property on which they farm, the exemption would not apply. Many agricultural producers also lease land to graze cattle or to harvest more acres. This being a common practice for family farms, it would be unreasonable and inefficient for children to be able to work on certain acres that are owned by the family and not be able to work on others that are leased by the family.

Jobs are being yanked out of young Americans’ hands that are ready and willing to work. These new proposals hinder a child under the age of 16 from participating in most agricultural activities that are essential in modern agriculture. They are restricted from working in pesticide handling, timber operations, manure pits, and storage bins, or working on ladders that are over six feet high. They are prohibited from handling “power-driven equipment” and operating tractors. Youths would be banned from being hired to brand, vaccinate, castrate, or treat animals, as well as herd animals on horseback. Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, states:

Hiring a neighbor, nephew, or niece to help with branding is a common practice on ranches and provides valuable experience to learn animal behavior and understand at a young age how to safely deal with livestock.  Additionally, any youth wanting to see veterinary medicine in practice would be prevented from doing so under this proposal, including a veterinarian’s own children accompanying him or her to a farm or ranch.  As with other sections in this proposal, this would discourage young people from taking an interest in ranching and veterinary medicine, and would be detrimental to the future to those industries.

Rehberg, an outspoken opponent to these new rules, alleges that the rules are too open to wide interpretations. For example children under 16 would not be allowed to assist in any task that involves inflicting pain, like branding or vaccinating. Rehberg points out, “If you were too take your baby to have its vaccinations, you’re going to have to take it to get shots in the arm or in the butt and I’s going to hurt. How do you say a vaccination is inflicting pain even if it’s keeping the animal healthy? That’s not very bright.”

These extra regulations are said to be safeguarding youths who work in the hazardous environment of agriculture. Rehberg’s letter to the DOL notes the National Farm Medicine Center’s finding that childhood injury rates on farms fell 59 percent from 1998-2009, stating “it does not make sense to crack down on an industry that is improving its safety record without government involvement.  In our current economic climate, we need to do everything we can to encourage economic growth. These new regulations are a detriment to that growth, and are pushing an industry that that is moving in the right direction on its own.”

These federal restrictions on the imperative hands-on experience in learning to manage and operate agricultural production deter the preservation of family farms in America. Of the two million U.S. farms, 98 percent of them are family-owned.

Nebraska Senators Mike Johanns and Ben Nelson were instrumental in getting the DOL to extend its comment period on this issue. Though Johanns acknowledges the necessity for workplace safety for all, he states, “This proposed rule raises serious questions about the administration’s understanding of the agricultural economy.” Nelson states, “One of every three jobs in Nebraska is tied to agriculture. We need to increase opportunities for our family farmers and ranchers to strengthen our rural economies, not threaten them with new, unneeded regulations from Washington.”

The infamous “secret farm bill,” negotiated by the leadership of the agriculture committees with little transparency and discussion, will not pass as part of the debt-reduction “supercommittee” recommendations, since discussions between Democrats and Republicans in the committee broke down. This means that the covert farm bill will not enjoy fast-track approval in Congress.

Now the new farm bill negotiations will be made public, and the new bill, expected to be based on the “secret” one, will probably face stiff opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. The contents of that farm bill, negotiated by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), are still a mystery. They did not release the full details of their negotiations, even to their own committee members.

The Hill reported that the secret bill eliminated lump sum direct payments to farmers (which in some cases meant that farmers who didn’t produce agricultural goods still received them) and replaced them with a “revenue based supplement to traditional crop insurance.” This type of insurance system would reduce the cost of farm bill programs when prices are sufficiently high. However, if prices fall below a certain threshold, taxpayers will pay for this insurance and costs can rise significantly. Ultimately, this program amounts to a privatization of gains (if prices are good, farmers keep all profits) and a socialization of losses (if crop prices are low, taxpayers are on the hook for federal insurance).

In a way, this program resembles the recent automaker and Wall Street bailouts. The so-called “toxic” assets maligned by commentators and politicians were actually bad investment decisions by banking executives. The bail-outs simply covered their losses. Had the investments panned out, Wall Street banks wouldn’t pay taxpayers back.

We should be thankful that the new farm bill will be closely scrutinized and openly discussed. The hidden negotiations of the bill probably included handouts to close associates and lobbyists of the agricultural committees’ leaderships. In fact, one of the details that leaked out was that pheasant hunters, represented by Pheasants Forever, had “successfully lobbied lawmakers for provisions that would have steered conservation funding to landowners who preserved grassy areas as habitat for the game bird.” If the “pheasant lobby” successfully lobbied to receive handouts, who knows what type of guarantees were made to more prominent and politically powerful groups, such as rice and peanut farmers (who supported the secret bill)?

We should expect a farm bill that will pit spending hawks, Corn Belt lawmakers, and welfare supporters against each other. The bill probably won’t change much from its past iterations (with the exception of direct lump payments and an expanded insurance program), but given the current economic climate and debt crisis in the United States, Congress should seriously consider eliminating costly and unnecessary provisions in the Farm Bill (starting with Title I commodity programs).

It seems like the leftist activists don’t want anyone to enjoy life. They’d rather we be fraught with worry. During the weeks and days leading up to Thanksgiving Day, they’ve issued bogus reports on why Americans should fear their holiday feast.

“Study finds chemical BPA in popular Thanksgiving canned foods,” says the Los Angeles Times. The story cites a study released by anti-chemical activists at the Breast Cancer Fund. “The organization tested four cans of each of the following: Campbell’s Cream of Mushroom Soup, Campbell’s Turkey Gravy, Carnation Evaporated Milk, Green Giant Cut Green Beans, Libby’s Pumpkin and Del Monte Fresh Cut Sweet Corn, Cream Style,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

You might expect such sensationalism from the Los Angeles Times, but what about the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)? JAMA also appears all too willing to take advantage of the holiday news hook to promote its publication of a study on BPA in canned goods. The new study appears in JAMA’s print magazine dated November 23/30, 2011 — Thanksgiving Day! the Thanksgiving issue. An abstract of the story is already posted on their website, which has garnered media attention for the publication by linking the study to turkey day.

These studies both measure levels of BPA. The first measures BPA levels found in canned food, and the JAMA piece measures BPA levels found in human urine. Surprise, surprise, BPA is found in canned food and urine of those who ate it. So what? The human body consumes a host of chemicals every day, man-made and synthetic. That doesn’t mean they pose a significant risk.

Take a look at the American Council on Science and Health’s analysis of a potential holiday dinner menu.  It’s full of many scary-sounding chemicals, such as benzaldehyde, caffeic acid, hydrogen peroxide, quercetin glycosides, ethyl alcohol, and benzene. None of these pose serious health concerns and all are naturally occurring! Likewise BPA poses no measurable risks. The only “impact” on the human body discovered related to BPA is that the chemical passes through the body — out quickly through urine. That reality indicates that it likely has no adverse health effects because the human body eliminates it so quickly. Not surprisingly, comprehensive scientific reviews report negligible risks from BPA. For details on these reviews and the science of BPA see CEI’s study on the topic.

The real story is the dangers that could result if people listen to leftist activists and meaningless JAMA articles condemning BPA use. BPA is found in food because it is used to make resins that line canned goods from soda pop to green beans, preventing food spoilage and the development of rust and/or pathogens in our food.  Without it, we can expect more food spoilage and more food-borne contamination.

Image credit: Justin Baeder on flickr.

Have a listen here.

What is the single most expensive regulation of all time? Energy Policy Analyst William Yeatman has one candidate: the EPA’s proposal to regulate mercury emissions from coal-powered plants. If it passes, the regulation would cost at least ten billion dollars per year to benefit a very small group of people: pregnant women who have subsistence-level income, and eat mostly large fish caught in inland freshwater bodies.