News Forum Archives: June 2003
Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate Change
By Andrew C. Revkin with Katharine Q. Seelye
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.
The report, commissioned in 2001 by the agency’s administrator, Christie Whitman, was intended to provide the first comprehensive review of what is known about various environmental problems, where gaps in understanding exist and how to fill them.
Agency officials said it was tentatively scheduled to be released early next week, before Mrs. Whitman steps down on June 27, ending a troubled time in office that often put her at odds with President Bush.
Drafts of the climate section, with changes sought by the White House, were given to The New York Times yesterday by a former E.P.A. official, along with earlier drafts and an internal memorandum in which some officials protested the changes. Two agency officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said the documents were authentic.
The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.
Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.
In the end, E.P.A. staff members, after discussions with administration officials, said they decided to delete the entire discussion to avoid criticism that they were selectively filtering science to suit policy.
Administration officials defended the report and said there was nothing untoward about the process that produced it. Mrs. Whitman said that she was “perfectly comfortable” with the edited version and that the differences over climate change should not hold up the broader assessment of the nation’s air, land and water.
“The first draft, as with many first drafts, contained everything,” she said in a brief telephone interview from the CBS studios in Manhattan, where she was waiting to tape “The Late Show With David Letterman.”
“As it went through the review, there was less consensus on the science and conclusions on climate change,” Ms. Whitman said. “So rather than go out with something half-baked or not put out the whole report, we felt it was important for us to get this out because there is a lot of really good information that people can use to measure our successes.”
James L. Connaughton, chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, a White House advisory group, said, “It would be utterly inaccurate to suggest that this administration has not provided quite an extensive discussion about the state of the climate. Ultimately, E.P.A. made the decision not to include the section on climate change because we had these ample discussions of the subject already.”
But private environmental groups sharply criticized the changes when they heard of them.
“Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science,” said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. “This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture.”
Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report.
An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.”
Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because “E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science.”
The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a year that the White House has sought to play down global warming in official documents.
Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval.
Like the September report, the forthcoming report says the issues will be dealt with later by a climate research plan being prepared by the Bush administration.
Other sections of the coming E.P.A. report — on water quality, ecological conditions, ozone depletion in the atmosphere and other issues — all start with a summary statement about the potential impact of changes on human health and the environment, which are the two responsibilities of the agency.
But in the “Global Issues” section of the draft returned by the White House to E.P.A. in April, an introductory sentence reading, “Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment” was cut and replaced with a paragraph that starts: “The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future.”
Some E.P.A. staff members defended the document, saying that although pared down it would still help policy makers and the agency address the climate issue.
“This is a positive step by the agency,” said an author of the report, who did not want to be named, adding that it would help someone determine “if a facility or pollutant is going to hurt my family or make it bad for the birds, bees and fish out there.”
Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)House Panel Slams EU For Biotech Food Ban
By J.R. Pegg
WASHINGTON, DC, June 13, 2003 (ENS) - Citing a new report that Sudan has rejected U.S. food aid that contained genetically modified (GM) food, House Speaker Dennis Hastert told a Congressional panel Thursday that the action is the direct result of the European Union’s “unconscionable” ban on biotech crops. Sudan’s decision is the latest evidence that the EU’s ban on approving new biotech crops is contributing to the hunger problem in Africa, Hastert said, and is spreading baseless skepticism about GM food across the world.
The EU’s policy is illegal and “not based on sound science,” said Hastert, an Illinois Republican.
“One would think that the European Union, and any country that has adopted similar protectionist policies, would embrace a technology with such promising advantages,” said Hastert, an Illinois Republican. “Sadly, they have not.
Hastert spoke at a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Research, scheduled to discuss plant biotechnology research and development in Africa.
The hearing contained a range of positive views about how biotech - often referred to as genetically modified - crops could help African farmers overcome drought and poor soil quality to increase yields and decrease pesticide use, but the EU ban loomed large over the discussion.
The panel heard proponents of biotech explain how it will boost food security for the world’s growing population by raising sustainable food production and also benefit the environment by reducing the need for more farmland, irrigation and pesticides.
Africa, because it has the world’s lowest productivity of staple food crops, “presents the highest potential for realizing major benefits from biotechnology,” according to USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios.
Natsios explained that USAID is supporting biotechnology research for Africa, using the money to link Africans with the international community as well as to build African leadership and decision making about the science of biotechnology.
The USAID Administrator says his agency is aiding African organizations and research institutions in Kenya, Uganda, Nigeria and South Africa to develop their own biotechnology strategies.
Natsios pointed out that Nigerian President Obasanjo publicly endorsed biotechnology and that South Africa has approved two new crop varieties.
“It is encouraging to see Africa’s two largest economies embracing these new technologies,” said Natsios. “We can hope their example is emulated elsewhere.”
Yet while the development of biotechnology within African nations is hampered by the lack of functional, science-based regulatory system, Natsios told the House panel, there is no question that the “irrational fear of biotechnology in the European Union” has affected development of biotechnology products in Africa.
The EU ban is causing a “hysteria” that is prompting African nations to reject food aid for fear it could contaminate food exports, which then could be banned by the EU, Natsios said.
USAID reported the rejection of food by Sudan, which joined Zambia, Zimbabwe and Mozambique as African nations that have refused U.S. food aid that consisted of biotech corn.
Zimbabwe and Mozambique reversed their decisions and accepted the aid, but only after ensuring the corn was first milled in an effort to limit the chance it could be grown or fed to livestock.
The EU has refused to grant import licenses for biotech food since October 1998 because many Europeans are worried about possible health and environmental risks. Prior to October 1998 the EU had approved nine agriculture biotech products for planting or import.
EU officials say the WTO allows members to develop their own approval procedures and this is what they are doing.
“We have been working hard in Europe to complete our regulatory system in line with the latest scientific and international developments,” EU Commissioner for Health and Consumer Protection David Byrne said in May in response the WTO action. “The finalization process is imminent. This is essential to restore consumer confidence in GM [food] in Europe.”
The EU is moving forward with legislation on traceability and labeling, two issues that have irked Bush administration officials and some supporters of biotech foods who believe these requirements would scare consumers and result in higher food costs for consumers and producers.
Hastert noted that China has developed new rules for the approval and labeling of biotech products, a move he believes will needlessly stunt the growth of the biotech industry.
“What is different is not the content of the food, but the process by which it is made,” Hastert said. “Even labeling genetically modified products would only mislead consumers and create an atmosphere of fear.”
Natsios stressed that European scientists have agreed GM food poses no health risks to the public, and added that “the President eats it.”
And President George W. Bush is by no means the only American eating GM food - 38 percent of U.S. corn and 75 percent of U.S. soybeans are genetically modified.
But it is clear this debate is about more than the safety of existing GM food, which primarily consists of corn or soybeans modified to be resists pests. The science is still new, critics say, and nations must be allowed to decide for themselves what benefits and risks of biotech crops present.
The United States has become “the bully in the world playground,” said Liana Stupples, UK Friends of the Earth policy and campaigns director.
“The Bush White House and American business interests should not have the right to make decisions about what people in Europe get to eat,” Stupples said.
And critics say the argument that the EU ban is increasing starvation in the Third World is disingenuous and is being used by the biotechnology industry and its supporters as a means to sell biotech crops to Europe.
Officials with the EU note that of the commercially available biotech crops, 75 percent are herbicide tolerant and 17 percent are insect resistant, neither of which are of particular use to developing countries in need of more stable food supplies.
“They are playing on the guilt of the First World,” according to Jane Rissler, a senior scientist with the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group of scientists and citizens. “People are not starving for lack of biotechnology.”
Hastert admitted that economics are at play, citing that the United States is costing U.S. farmers some U.S. $300 million in corn exports each year. Canada, who has joined the United States in its WTO appeal, says the ban has lead to the collapse of its $290 million canola export business.
“This is a non-tariff barrier based simply on prejudice and misinformation, not sound science,” Hastert said.
Yet EU officials insist the organization’s regulatory system will be driven by science, not economics, and say that the U.S. decision to challenge its policy through the WTO will prove counterproductive.
Those who accuse the United States of being a “biotech bully” note that it does not support the United Nations’ Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which is designed to ensure that countries, exporters and importers have the necessary information to make informed choices about biotech foods.
The EU supports the protocol, which will enter into effect in 90 days. The nation of Palau today ratified the agreement, becoming the fiftieth nation to do so, therbey activating the trigger that will put the protocol into effect.
“The Cartagena Protocol recognizes that biotechnology has an immense potential for improving human welfare, but that it could also pose potential risks to biodiversity and human health,” said Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme.
The United States fears the UN accord could lead to labeling - it pulled out of negotiations on the agreement in 1999, under the administration of President Bill Clinton.
And Thursday’s hearing reflected growing support for the Bush administration’s WTO action and the increased acceptance of the argument that the hungry in Africa are unduly suffering because of the EU ban.
“It is absolutely unconscionable that misguided special interest groups are spreading blatant lies and falsehoods about the safety of plant biotechnology while thousands of Africans, particularly young children, die,” said California Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, a Democrat.
Earlier this week, Lofgren joined 338 of her colleagues in voting for a nonbinding resolution voicing the House’s resolution supporting the Bush administration’s efforts to use the WTO to attack the EU’s ban on biotech crops.
Copyright Environment News Service (ENS) 2003. All Rights Reserved.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)