By Eric Roston

It’s Air Quality Awareness Week and the Environmental Protection Agency is taking the opportunity to share some important medical advice.

In a series of tweets and elsewhere online, the agency is drawing attention to the impact of air pollution on health by citing scientific studies and other material.

But critics were quick to point out that some of the very studies being highlighted might not be allowed under proposed guidelines to restrict studies used in policy making.

On April 24, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt proposed the “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science” rule that would break with decades of federal practice by limiting the science available to regulators. Pruitt said the proposal was designed to enhance transparency in rule-making, but critics say it could preclude the use of studies that rely on data that has been anonymized, with information that could identify the participants removed.

“The administrator is absolutely right to want to make sure the basis for federal policy is strong and relies on research that is reproducible,” said Michael Greenstone, the Milton Friedman professor of economics at the University of Chicago. “Where I find it difficult to follow the logic is assigning zero weight to research that has been peer-reviewed and complies with the disclosure regulations of federal agencies that have collected the data.”

Continue reading at Bloomberg…

Read More

Areas of Focus: Environment
Producing and using energy damages people’s health and the environment. EPIC research is quantifying the social costs of energy choices and uncovering policies that help protect health while facilitating growth.
Environmental Health
Environmental Health
Energy and industrial processes introduce toxins into the environment. EPIC research is helping to educate policymakers and consumers on the social and economic costs of this pollution, and the potential...