Watchdog: EPA chief’s trip to Italy cost taxpayers $120,000
By Susan McFarland March 21, 2018
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is being scrutinized for the amount of money it took to send him to Italy last year. Documents show the costs amount to $120,000. File Photo by Mike Theiler/UPI
March 21 (UPI) — A trip to Italy last year for Environmental Protective Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt cost U.S. taxpayers $120,000, a watchdog said Wednesday.
Costs for Pruitt’s security detail added more than $30,000 to the bill than previously revealed, according to the Environmental Integrity Project, a non-partisan and non-profit watchdog group.
The trip, taken last June, is also under review by the agency’s inspector general.
Previously released travel documents showed the EPA spent close to $90,000 to send Pruitt and his staff to Italy for one day for the G7 environmental summit. Included in that amount was a $36,000 military flight so Pruitt could join President Donald Trump at a Cincinnati event, and then make it to New York in time for his flight to Rome.
A statement by EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said the agency did not deviate from standard protocol when approving that security detail, and followed the same procedures it’s has used for nearly 15 years.
“Administrator Pruitt’s security detail followed the same procedures for the G7 environmental meeting in Italy that were used during EPA Administrators Stephen Johnson, Lisa Jackson and Gina McCarthy’s trips to Italy,” Wilcox said.
Eric Schaeffer, director of the watchdog and former director of the EPA’s Office of Enforcement, is still critical of the amount spent.
“That’s a lot of money for Mr. Pruitt to tour the Vatican, pose for photos, and tell his European counterparts that global warming doesn’t matter,” he said. “And it doesn’t even include salary costs for everyone who signed up for this tour.”
Pruitt has also faced criticism for flying luxury class during official trips. According to records the EPA provided to the House Oversight Committee, Pruitt spent more than $105,000 in taxpayer funds on first-class flights since becoming President Donald Trump’s EPA chief in February 2017.
Trump EPA Plans New Restrictions on Science Used in Rule Making
By Jennifer A Dlouhy March 20, 2018
Scott Pruitt. Photographer: T.J. Kirkpatrick/Bloomberg
EPA Chief Pruitt says data should be objective, transparent
Move could limit reliance on health studies with shielded data
The Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to restrict the scientific studies it uses to develop and justify regulations, making it harder to rely on research when its underlying data are shielded from view.
The planned policy shift, urged by conservatives and advisers who guided Donald Trump’s presidential transition, could affect EPA regulations governing climate change, air pollution and clean water for years to come. The move was described by a person familiar with the plan, who asked not to be named discussing the change before it is formally announced.
Although the EPA hasn’t formally announced the policy change, expected in the coming weeks, Administrator Scott Pruitt outlined the broad strokes of the plan for conservatives in a recent meeting and told The Daily Caller he would insist on the details of studies underpinning environmental regulations.
The EPA should rely on science that is “very objective, very transparent and very open,” Pruitt said in a March 13 interview with Bloomberg News, casting his concern as focused on third-party research in which findings are published but the underlying data and methodology aren’t open for scrutiny.
“That’s not right,” Pruitt said. Whenever the EPA gets scientific evaluations from third parties, “the methodology and data need to be a part of the official record — the rule making — so that you and others can look at it and say, ‘was it wisely done?’”
Advocates of the change say that by revisiting the science that underpins a swath of environmental rules, including those governing ozone and mercury pollution, the EPA can begin to undo them.
“The EPA has gotten away from honestly comparing the costs and benefits of regulation, by using black box science that where they are essentially saying ‘trust us,’” said Myron Ebell, director of the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute that advocates limited government. “It’s a way to justify regulations, far beyond any environmental or health benefits.”
Critics said the move is a way to undermine environmental laws too popular to be undone by Congress.
“It’s just another way to prevent the EPA from using independent science to enforce some of our bedrock environmental laws, like the Clean Air Act,” said Yogin Kothari, a Washington representative with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy. “You know you’re not going to be able to undo the Clean Air Act, so instead of attacking the law itself, you attack the process by which the law is implemented.”
Conservatives have pointed to a landmark 1993 air pollution study conducted by Harvard University’s School of Public Health that paved the way for more stringent regulations on air pollution by linking fine particulate matter to mortality risk. The underlying data from that federally funded research, known as the Six Cities Study, was never publicly released because its participants were promised confidentiality, according to the university.
“This canard about ‘secret science’ began as an attempt by industry to undermine the landmark research — from more than two decades ago — that determined air pollution is bad for your health,” said John Walke, director of the clean air project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “As a result of those findings, EPA forced polluters to clean up their act, saving or improving tens of thousands of lives.”
Depending on the details, the policy could affect both epidemiological studies that rely on confidential medical records, as well as industry-backed research by companies reluctant to share data recorded at oil wells and power plants.
Pruitt to Restrict Use of Scientific Data in EPA Policy-making
Lorraine Chow March 21, 2018
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt. Mitchell Resnick
In the coming weeks, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt is expected to announce a proposal that would limit the type of scientific studies and data the agency can use in crafting public health and environmental regulations.
The planned policy shift, first reported by E&E News, would require the EPA to only use scientific findings whose data and methodologies are made public and can be replicated.
The idea has long been championed by House Science, Space and Technology Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). The prominent climate change denier proposed a bill last year called the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment (HONEST) Act, formerly known as The Secret Science Reform Act, that prohibits any future regulations from taking effect unless the underlying scientific data is public.
Smith’s legislation, which is widely criticized by scientific organizations, passed in the House last March but hasn’t left the Senate Environment And Public Works Committee.
Pruitt indicated at a closed-door meeting at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week that he would adopt elements of Smith’s stalled bill, E&E News reported.
Also, in a recent interview with The Daily Caller, the EPA boss said his latest proposal was a transparency measure against what he and his Republican colleagues consider “secret science.”
“We need to make sure their data and methodology are published as part of the record,” Pruitt told the conservative news site. “Otherwise, it’s not transparent. It’s not objectively measured, and that’s important.”
Last year, the EPA head controversially announced a policy that would limit the presence of researchers who have received EPA research grants on the agency’s Scientific Advisory Board.
Those in opposition to Pruitt’s latest policy move say it would undermine the essential mission of the EPA.
Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, pointed out that the proposed changes would prohibit the use of personal health data such as private medial records, and confidential business information from even being considered in EPA policymaking.
“Companies could evade accountability for the pollution they create by declaring information about that pollution a ‘trade secret,'” Rosenberg said.
“Fortunately, this nonsensical and dangerous proposal has never been able to make it out of Congress, but Pruitt seems intent on imposing it anyway.”
Sierra Club Associate Director of Federal & Administrative Advocacy Matthew Gravatt said, “By limiting what studies can be used to help keep our air and water clean, our climate safe, and our homes free of toxic chemicals, Pruitt is trying to make it harder for the EPA to protect the health and safety of American families.”
On Tuesday, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) announced it filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking documents that outline the details of this new policy and its development.
“By limiting what studies can be used to help keep us safe, this reported policy would make it harder for EPA to protect American families from pollution, toxic chemicals, and other threats. The result would be more serious health impacts—from asthma to cancer—for communities across the country,” said EDF Senior Attorney Martha Roberts.
EPA chief’s security detail on Italy trip cost $30,000: document
Reuters March 20, 2018
FILE PHOTO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt attends during a summit of Environment ministers from the G7 group of industrialized nations in Bologna, Italy, June11, 2017. REUTERS/Max Rossi
(Reuters) – The U.S. government spent over $30,000 on personal security for Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt during his trip last year to Italy, according to documents obtained by a watchdog group that said the spending was irresponsible at a time of budget cuts.
According to the document, obtained by the Environmental Integrity Project through a Freedom of Information Act request and shown to Reuters, Pruitt’s personal security detail racked up $30,553.88 in travel costs from June 5 through June 12, 2017, when Pruitt was in Italy for meetings at the Vatican and to attend a summit of foreign energy ministers.
Previous documents released by EIP showed the cost of Pruitt’s trip to Italy at $43,000, not including the security detail. The new documents, which include airfare and expenses for Pruitt, his career and political staff, and his security detail, put the cost over $80,000, EIP calculated.
“Mr. Pruitt’s trip to Rome last summer cost the taxpayers over $84,000,” said Eric Schaeffer, EIP’s director. “That’s a lot of money for Mr. Pruitt to tour the Vatican, pose for photos, and tell his European counterparts that global warming doesn’t matter,” he said.
Spending by top officials in the Trump administration has come under more scrutiny by critics at a time when federal agencies have been making sharp budget cuts. Lawmakers have also criticized Pruitt for frequently flying first-class, and for spending tens of thousands of dollars on a secure sound-proof telephone booth for his office.
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox said the security detail “followed the same procedures for the G7 environmental meeting in Italy that were used during EPA Administrators Stephen Johnson, Lisa Jackson, and Gina McCarthy’s trips to Italy. EPA’s security procedures have not deviated over the past 14 years.”
It was unclear from looking at the document how many members were in the security detail, and no breakdown of the spending was provided.
EIP has been critical of Pruitt’s statements questioning the causes of global climate change and his efforts to roll back environmental protections.
EPA has said Pruitt has flown first-class as a security measure, and that the administrator does not make decisions relating to his security detail.
(Reporting by Valerie Volcovici; Writing by Richard Valdmanis; Editing by David Gregorio)
Baseball’s ‘wannabe environmentalist’ thrives with a fastball that doesn’t have any gas
Jeff Passan, Yahoo Sports March 13, 2018
MARYVALE, Ariz. – Of all the questions that distressed Brent Suter before the Milwaukee Brewers summoned him to the major leagues in 2016 – how his 85-mph fastball would play against the world’s finest hitters or how the rigors of big league life would suit him – only one vexed him enough to ask his Triple-A teammates: Could he bring his food tray?
Suter reached into his locker last week at the Brewers’ spring-training complex and pulled out Smart Planet’s collapsible Eco Meal Kit. He showed how its silicone bottom expanded and raved about the recyclable plastic fork-spoon combination that snapped into the cover. When his teammates tuck into pre- and post-game meals on Styrofoam plates, Suter opts for old reliable: the same reusable container that accompanies him from city to big league city.
“I’m a wannabe environmentalist,” Suter said, and in the world of Major League Baseball, populated disproportionately by conservatives compared to conservationists, the concerns over an $11 food tray were palpable. Suter, a Harvard graduate, didn’t want to paint a picture of himself any stuffier than the one his degree might.
He was, after all, a 31st-round draft pick who had ascended the Brewers’ organization on guile, deception and a fastball that, staying completely on brand, performed without gas. When he was drafted, Suter put on hold plans to join Teach for America, and over the next five years, he pitched too well for the Brewers to keep overlooking him. So up he and his tray came in 2016, and each has proven itself worthwhile ever since, with a 3.40 ERA in 103 1/3 innings and a likely starting rotation spot this season.
Suter’s interest in the environment started early in high school, when his mother rented “An Inconvenient Truth.” He started carrying a water bottle to lessen his use of plastic. He showered for 40 seconds or so on average. He studied environmental science and public policy in college and figured eventually he would wind up consulting companies on how to get greener. Last season, cognizant of farming’s harm to the environment, Suter stopped eating meat midseason. A rotator-cuff strain ended that experiment.
“I had to go back on meat,” Suter said. “Tough decision.”
Suter’s teammates do about everything that would be expected in a baseball clubhouse. He is called a tree hugger. Brewers starter Chase Anderson, a Trump supporter, occasionally refers to Suter as “Hillary.” In Suter’s rookie year, before hazing was outlawed, he wore a cheerleader’s outfit that was amended to note his love of recycling.
Milwaukee Brewers starting pitcher Brent Suter delivers in the first inning of a baseball game against the Pittsburgh Pirates, Monday, Sept. 18, 2017 in Pittsburgh. (AP)
“I’ve had teammates who just look at me and drop napkins in the trash,” Suter said. “And I go, ‘Noooo!’ And then I’ve had teammates who turn on an extra shower.”
What may surprise is that Suter also had teammates who love engaging with him in the sort of civil discourse that barely exists anymore. Over coffee and omelets, Suter, Anderson and minor leaguers Jon Perrin and Kyle Wren will discuss the environment, politics, philosophy, religion. Sometimes it’s the news of the day. Others it’s whatever they’re reading.
“This is one of the last places where you can talk openly about your background, what your beliefs are, have conversations with people from totally different backgrounds and even if you disagree, at the end of the day you still can be friends,” said Wren, a teammate of Suter’s for three years. “You’re still going out on the field and playing for each other. And I think that’s something our society has gotten away from. Just because you disagree doesn’t mean you can’t like each other.”
Currently, Wren is reading “The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels,” and he sent a picture of the book’s cover to Suter, who responded with an upside-down smiley-face emoji. Even if Wren finds himself the near-ideological opposite of Suter when it comes to the environment – he acknowledges climate change but doesn’t believe its dangers are imminent – their conversations stir something the game may not.
“When that cognitive dissonance hits you and you’re fighting it because it runs in conflict to your own beliefs,” Wren said, “I think that makes the world a better place.”
Wren has seen Suter’s influence first-hand. As he did at all of his previous minor league stops, Suter in 2016 offered to buy his teammates food trays. About 10 took him up on the offer, and half used them for the rest of the season.
“In the real world, just him doing that one thing, is he making a difference? It’s probably negligible,” Wren said. “But he’s principled. And I can respect the fact that he believes a certain thing enough to bring a recyclable lunch tray to the field. He says something about his life and lives it out.
“Even if he influences 30 people over the course of his life, that’s a lot of lives he’s changed. It can create a lot of exponential growth from his one decision to carry this lunch tray.”
The conversations invigorate Suter likewise, and the more time he spends in the major leagues, the likelier he’ll be to expand them to a broader audience. Baseball enforces a pecking order that tends to keep the most outspoken voices silent until success turns off the mute button.
“I love it so much,” Suter said. “I really enjoy the debates. We don’t attack each other or get personal. We just have our opinions and respect each other’s points.”
So when they go deep, Suter talks about the importance of water bottles: “They can save a ton of CO2.” He advocates for composting: “Not only is it good for the earth, but when you have food waste, you feel like it’s going to something good.” He encourages people to take shorter showers (while realizing the futility of this inside a postgame clubhouse). At very least, he says, don’t use running water while shaving.
The best, Wren said, came in 2016. It was so good that he screenshotted it for posterity. After he switched phones, the picture didn’t transfer over, but Wren swears that one day, out of nowhere, Suter sent him a text message that may sound farcical but was completely sincere and perfectly earnest.
“Hey,” Suter wrote, “you wanna go plant some trees today?”
If anyone’s still hoping trump will somehow become “Presidential,” they’re as delusional as he exhibits daily.
If anything, he’s doubling down on pandemonium, by orchestrating chaotic episodes of the “Apprentice,” where at the end of the week, someone’s summarily canned and sent down the elevator to a waiting limo.
Unfortunately the impact of such fantasy playing out in the West Wing is not as benign as trump’s inconsequential reality show. Dedicated career employees like James Comey and Sally Yates, fired for refusing blind loyalty to king Donald, just fired Andrew McCabe, who backed up Comey’s narrative of his disputed encounters with trump, eminently respected business executive Rex Tillerson, unceremoniously fired by tweet after criticizing the Russians for dastardly deeds in Syria and in London last week, fired high level State Department official Steven Goldstein, who authored an official State Department statement that conflicted with White House accounts of how Mr. Tillerson was jettisoned, and countless additional federal career employees who’ve been fired, or have resigned like Gary Cohn, or retired in the face of trump administration discombobulation, are the intended consequences of trump’s scripted, bizarre notions of “Presidential” decorum.
trump’s done more damage to our institutions and governing infrastructure than any president in history and couldn’t care less about the human flotsam.
We’ve witnessed an unprecedented (40%) turnover in trump administration employees. Granted, many of these employees should never have been allowed near the West Wing or even through the front gate of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, considering dozens couldn’t qualify for security clearances, but this isn’t normal by anyone’s standards.
trump hired Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, even though Pruitt spent decades opposing the Environmental Protection Agency’s mandate to protect America’s air, water and land; hired Betsy DeVos for Secretary of Education, even though she’s been described as the strongest opponent of public education; hired Rick Perry for Secretary of Energy, even though he hadn’t a clue of what that job entailed; hired Ben Carson for Secretary of HUD because he once lived in an apartment; hired Wilber Ross for Secretary of Commerce apparently because he’s an expert at laundering Oligarchs money, hired Steven Munchin for Secretary of Treasury because he made a fortune foreclosing on Veterans and middle class mortgagees in distress after the financial collapse, hired Mick Mulvaney because he routinely railed against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and middle class entitlement programs; hired Tom Price, a staunch opponent of Obamacare and social safety net programs, for Secretary of Health and Human Services, before he was fired for insider trading in health stocks and squandering taxpayers money on extravagant travel expenses; hired Ryan Zinke for Secretary of the Interior because he, like trump, is bound and determined to turn over America’s National Parks and public lands to fossil fuel and mining interests.
I could go on and on but the point is, trump’s idea of “Best and Brightest” is in stark contrast to the Obama administration, who actually hired experts qualified and eager to improve their departments, not destroy them.
With a few exceptions, like Gary Cohn and Rex Tillerson, and probably Generals Mattis and McMaster, would any respectable major corporation or organization hire for department level positions, any of the unqualified and flawed characters trump hired as his “best and brightest?”
We soon learned, trump’s main focus was not to find and assign the “Best People,” who might exhibit expertise for a particular position in his administration, but to appoint someone keen on undermining the basic institutions America relies on to effectively govern in a democratic society. Sadly, Democratic principles are foreign to trump’s business and ethical sensibilities.
Is it any wonder this cast of political misfits have run amuck. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow Show struggles to keep a running list of all the casualties of trump’s administration. The show had to reconfigure her set so that all three columns showing more than 50 names could fit in the screen.
Most of the people brought into trump world seem to have one thing in common. They’re either adept at sycophancy or are tarnished individuals previously engaged in all sorts of dubious or criminal conduct. Fraud, money laundering, insider trading, domestic abuse, tax fraud, gambling, unbound avarice, no holds barred self dealing, back stabbing, or any form of anti social behavior is a plus on their resumes.
In any other administration in America’s history, these tarnished miscreants would have never been considered, let alone employed. But trump views their moral character flaws as a badge of courage, examples of business genius and resourcefulness. Winning at all costs is integral to trumps idea of fairness and proof of a persons ideological bona fides.
Bad conduct seems a pre-requisite for entering trumps world, and unquestioned loyalty is required for staying there.
Once that loyalty fades for even a moment, the king issues the decree; “you’re fired!”
The list of casualties grows daily and is too numerous to mention here. But after the firing dust settles, trump moves people around like pieces on a chess board, not with any consideration of talent or fitness for the job but with the main goal of securing loyalty.
trump’s only left with rearranging the human deck chairs on the Titanic because most potential qualified applicants have enough sense to steer clear of this toxic environment.
No one’s surprised trump’s engulfed in the Stormy Daniels reality show scandal. No one’s surprised he cheated on his wife while she was carrying his child, or that he tried to cover it up. We’re no longer surprised when the daily calamity and sleaze oozes from the White House.
No one’s surprised trump’s looking for his 5th communications director. Lying to the public and the press is the primary prerequisite. No one’s surprised he fired Rex Tillerson with a Tweet, or that he lied to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then bragged about it during a campaign stop, or that he’s been trying to fire Attorney General Jeff Sessions for months, or that he browbeat Sessions into firing Andrew McCabe a day before he was to retire and collect a pension, or that he’s chomping at the bit, to fire Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, Special Investigator Robert Mueller, National Security Advisor McMaster and probably at lease a half dozen other employees Fox News implores him to ditch and demean.
trump now claims “he’s almost got the cabinet he’s always wanted.” Wow! Wow!
trump is the ultimate tarbaby, the pre-eminent Brer Rabbit like trickster, who schemes and connives and creates havoc all along his gold plated career paths and in every situation he engages, but then wriggles free at the last minute by turning the tables on acquaintances, employees and business partners. He employs the Midas touch in reverse. Yet he seems to escape every self imposed calamity unscathed, while those who pledged their allegiance, believed in his shtick, who fell for his cons, have crashed and burned.
trump lives to denigrate anyone and everyone at one time or another, except for the Russians and Vladimir Putin, who if you watch late night talk show satire and Saturday Night Live skits, would be an easy target for trump’s particular form of belittlement.
But trump refuses to criticize the Russians and quickly fires anyone, including Tillerson and maybe soon McMasters, when they speak out publically about Russian transgressions. Why isn’t trump troubled by Russian threats to world stability, to our democratic institutions, our critical infrastructure and our national security? It begs the question, what are the Russians holding over our Demeaner in Chief?
Progressive Americans yearns for normal, for a social community where folks sit down together, using facts and principles, and applies logic and critical thinking to solve problems. We now realize that’s foreign to trump’s realm of thought. He disregards most expert advise, embraces wild conspiracy theorists, promotes controversy, exacerbates solvable problems and takes delight in White House employee infighting.
What would trump’s unflinching base of enablers say if President Obama had done a fraction of what trump calls winning? When will the Republi-con controlled congress decide they’ve had enough?
Whether or not it’s talked about on the major networks, income and wealth inequality is one of the defining issues of our time. Please join me, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore, Darrick Hamilton and o
Whether or not it's talked about on the major networks, income and wealth inequality is one of the defining issues of our time. Please join me, Elizabeth Warren, Michael Moore, Darrick Hamilton and others on Facebook Monday, March 19 for an incredibly important discussion.
Top bottled water brands contaminated with plastic particles: report
Kerry Sheridan, AFP March 14, 2018
Miami (AFP) – The world’s leading brands of bottled water are contaminated with tiny plastic particles that are likely seeping in during the packaging process, according to a major study across nine countries published Wednesday.
“Widespread contamination” with plastic was found in the study, led by microplastic researcher Sherri Mason of the State University of New York at Fredonia, according to a summary released by Orb Media, a US-based non-profit media collective.
Researchers tested 250 bottles of water in Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lebanon, Mexico, Thailand and the United States.
Plastic was identified in 93 percent of the samples, which included major name brands such as Aqua, Aquafina, Dasani, Evian, Nestle Pure Life and San Pellegrino.
The plastic debris included nylon, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) and polypropylene, which is used to make bottle caps.
“In this study, 65 percent of the particles we found were actually fragments and not fibers,” Mason told AFP.
“I think that most of the plastic that we are seeing is coming from the bottle itself. It is coming from the cap. It is coming from the industrial process of bottling the water.”
Particle concentration ranged from “zero to more than 10,000 likely plastic particles in a single bottle,” said the report.
On average, plastic particles in the 100 micron (0.10 millimeter) size range — considered “microplastics” — were found at an average rate of 10.4 plastic particles per liter.
Even smaller particles were more common — averaging about 325 per liter.
Other brands that were found to contain plastic contaminated included Bisleri, Epura, Gerolsteiner, Minalba and Wahaha.
Experts cautioned that the extent of the risk to human health posed by such contamination remains unclear.
“There are connections to increases in certain kinds of cancer to lower sperm count to increases in conditions like ADHD and autism,” said Mason.
“We know that they are connected to these synthetic chemicals in the environment and we know that plastics are providing kind of a means to get those chemicals into our bodies.”
– Time to ditch plastic? –
Previous research by Orb Media has found plastic particles in tap water, too, but on a smaller scale.
“Tap water, by and large, is much safer than bottled water,” said Mason.
The three-month study used a technique developed by the University of East Anglia’s School of Chemistry to “see” microplastic particles by staining them using fluorescent Nile Red dye, which makes plastic fluorescent when irradiated with blue light.
“We have been involved with independently reviewing the findings and methodology to ensure the study is robust and credible,” said lead researcher Andrew Mayes, from UEA’s School of Chemistry.
“The results stack up.”
However, representatives from the bottled water industry took issue with the findings, saying they were not peer-reviewed and “not based on sound science,” according to a statement from the International Bottled Water Association.
“A recent scientific study published in the peer-reviewed journal Water Research in February 2018 concluded that no statistically relevant amount of microplastic can be found in water in single-use plastic bottles,” it added.
“There is no scientific consensus on the potential health impacts of microplastic particles. The data on the topic is limited and conclusions differ dramatically from one study to another.”
Jacqueline Savitz, chief policy officer for North America at Oceana, a marine advocacy group that was not involved in the research, said the study provides more evidence that society must abandon the ubiquitous use of plastic water bottles.
“We know plastics are building up in marine animals, and this means we too are being exposed, some of us every day,” she said.
“It’s more urgent now than ever before to make plastic water bottles a thing of the past.”
Trump administration wages a ‘war on information,’ group charges
By Anita Kumar March 13, 2018
President Donald Trump speaks at a rally in Moon Township, Pa., March 10, 2018. In a 75-minute performance in western Pennsylvania, it was vintage 2016 Trump: rambling and fiery, boastful and jocular — the part of being president that he loves perhaps the most. Tom Brenner NYT White House
Washington: The Trump administration has halted a new policy that would have required large companies to report what they pay their employees by race and gender. It has stopped a study of serious health risks for people who live near coal mine sites in Central Appalachia. And it has collected less crime data from across the nation than previous years.
In a new report to be released Tuesday, watchdog group Public Citizen outlined 25 ways President Donald Trump and federal agencies have conducted a so-called war on information over the last 14 months, largely eliminating data it finds inconvenient.
In most cases, the information already had been previously collected by the government. But in other cases, a plan was in place for the government to start collecting the information.
“A president who cares little about facts and has a dubious understanding of the concept of truthfulness sets the tone for his overall administration,” Robert Weissman, president of Public Citizen, told McClatchy. “But it’s not just that the administration is sloppy with the facts; it has engaged in a deliberate campaign to suppress information that contradicts its corporate and ideological extremist agenda.”
Public Citizen said the Trump administration is terminating studies that contradict its positions on big business priorities, manipulating data to promote an anti-immigrant agenda and failing to seek input from scientists and other experts. The study is not comprehensive but does show how the administration has denied facts, rejected expert advice and promoted falsehoods, its authors say.
In some cases, the administration has reversed course after being criticized, according to the report.
In one example, the report said the Department of Agriculture in February 2017 removed thousands of animal welfare documents from its website, including documents on the number of animals kept by research labs, circuses, companies and zoos. It began posting the information again later that month after animal rights groups complained, though it redacts some information citing “privacy” concerns.
In another instance, the report said, the Federal Emergency Management Agency deleted statistics in October 2017 on the percentage of Puerto Ricans with power and access to drinking water following Hurricane Maria. FEMA later began posting the information again that same month after the media reported it.
Even before Trump was sworn into office, he was accused of hiding information. Trump never released his tax returns, despite the common practice of presidents for four decades of releasing them and refused to post visitor logs for the White House until it settled a lawsuit that would reveal some details.
The White House did not respond to a request for comment about the Public Citizen report.
“These are not random suppressions of data and evidence, simply a byproduct of carelessness,” the report states. “The Trump administration-wide information suppression is a considered and concerted effort to serve corporate and extremist ideological interests.”
Other examples cited in the report:
Suspending a study to update an offshore oil and gas operations inspection program.
Scaling back research of the environmental impact of copper mining in a northern Minnesota wilderness area.
Removinginformation about climate change from websites.
Abandoning aninternational effort to require energy and mining firms to disclose payments given to governments.
Barring student loan services from responding to information requests from third parties, including state regulators.
No longer mandating contractors bidding on federal projects disclose all labor law violations for the past three years
Not requiring the Census Bureau to ask about sexual orientation or gender identity on its two biggest surveys.
Public Citizen also cited the example of a commission Trump created to look into voter fraud after he said millions of people voted illegally in 2016, though he provided no proof. The commission was later disbanded after states revolted.
“Members of the Trump administration seem eager to dish off the record about the daily drama of a dysfunctional White House,” said Alan Zibel, research director for Public Citizen’s Corporate Presidency Project and co-author of the report. “But they routinely suppress far more consequential information about how Trump’s dangerous worker safety, public health and environmental policies will impact Americans.”
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is being scrutinized for the amount of money it took to send him to Italy last year. Documents show the costs amount to $120,000. File Photo by Mike Theiler/UPI
Scott Pruitt. 
FILE PHOTO: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt attends during a summit of Environment ministers from the G7 group of industrialized nations in Bologna, Italy, June11, 2017. REUTERS/Max Rossi
Milwaukee Brewers starting pitcher Brent Suter delivers in the first inning of a baseball game against the Pittsburgh Pirates, Monday, Sept. 18, 2017 in Pittsburgh. (AP)
JohnHanno, www.tarbabys.com