Censored Science Victory

MEIC

Teams up to Defeat

“Censored Science” Rule

by Derf Johnson & Katy Spence

In the final days of former President Trump’s presidency, his administration pushed an egregious rule that would have required the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to disregard and ignore scientific research that utilized data from confidential medical information. Officially, it was known as the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule but, to opponents, it became known as the “Censored Science” rule.

Immediately after the rule’s publication, which went into effect immediately, MEIC joined forces with the Environmental Defense Fund and Great Falls, Montana, -based Citizens for Clean Energy to sue the federal government and block the immediate implementation of the rule. And just a few weeks later, we won.

The EPA has long relied on studies that contain confidential data to develop new regulations, including dose-response studies, which explore how much exposure to a substance increases risk. For example, studies on the effect of air pollutants on human health could be based on private medical information but inform important regulatory policies regarding air pollution. Studies such as these have helped improve regulations on water pollution, as well as exposure to toxins, workplace chemicals, and cigarette smoke. Participants in human health studies often agree to provide their personal medical information with the condition that their private health information not be disclosed publicly. Federal law also contains protections for private medical information under HIPAA.

The Censored Science rule would have required the EPA to disclose raw data from public health studies before it could enact regulations based on that research. Because the EPA cannot disclose private medical records, the rule change would have forced the agency to ignore or lessen the influence those studies would have had on new regulations.

In other words, the EPA would have had to ignore the most important science when it came to public health regulations. It may come as no surprise that supporters of the Censored Science rule included lobbyists for the tobacco and fossil fuel industries.

This absurd rule was a parting shot from an administration that undermined science at every turn. By refusing to let the EPA use the best available scientific studies, the agency would have become hobbled, no longer able to enact regulations that protect our air and water.

Even the rule’s name was a misnomer. Proponents claimed it would have provided “transparency,” but in reality it was simply an

underhanded attempt by lobbyists to discount decades of peer-reviewed epidemiological information in order to push for more lenient regulations for their industries, all at the cost of human and environmental health.

The EPA utilizes studies that undergo rigorous peer review and often makes those studies available to the public. It’s well-established in the research community that medical data is often private and cannot be shared. By trying to force the EPA to subvert established scientific practice, the rule would have undercut the agency’s power and the public’s trust in it.

Luckily for us, the Trump Administration itself gave us the key to defeating this rule: rushing through the process.

On Feb. 1, Judge Brian Morris, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana in Great Falls, scrapped the dangerous rule, writing that the Trump Administration EPA “failed to justify its decision to make the controversial rule take effect right after its publication in the Federal Register, instead of after 30 days, as is typical.”

Thankfully, we were able to take this terrible regulation off of the books based on a poor implementation process by the EPA. Had the rulemaking and implementation been done properly, we could have been wrapped up in litigation for years. A huge debt of gratitude goes to our partners at the Environmental Defense Fund and Citizens for Clean Energy, in particular our brilliant legal counsel Deepak Gupta.

“This absurd rule was a parting shot from an administration that undermined science at every turn.”

Legislature to Consider Protecting Pollinators

HB 410 (Rep. Andrea Olson, D-Missoula) would create a statewide plan to help save pollinators in Montana. Montana is the second leading honey producer in the U.S. Each year, honeybees pollinate an estimated $15 billion dollars of crops, and Montana’s honey industry creates products valued at $30 million dollars. Bees are responsible, either directly or indirectly, for a full two-thirds of our food.

Unfortunately, honeybees and this industry are in jeopardy due to a destructive phenomenon called colony collapse disorder (CCD). A sustainable rate of hive loss is around 15%, but in recent years, the USDA estimates that beekeepers have lost 40% to 50% of their beehives.

Several factors contribute to CCD, including the widespread use of neonicitinoids, a class of pesticides that is highly toxic to bees and other pollinators. These pesticides are systemic, meaning that they are taken up by a plant and continue to be deadly to insects throughout the life cycle of that plant. Neonics can also leach into soil and be carried by wind, causing a lasting impact on the landscape long after application occurs.

To save bee populations, there is a national movement to phase out the use of neonics. Some states have prohibited specific uses of the pesticide and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has also phased it out on national wildlife refuges. HB 410 would help Montana move in that same direction and protect pollinators, the food they help provide, and an important industry in Montana.