Whether pesticides harm the birds and bees — or human health — matters a lot. One of the public's protections is the requirement for disclosure in the nation's pesticide laws. Three groups, represented by Earthjustice, argue that EPA has authority under current federal pesticide law to require disclosure of inert ingredients.
- SEJ Publication Types:Visibility:
Disclosure issues have been in the news of late — especially the war over research on genetically modified organisms. Now journalist Sara Reardon, in Nature News & Comment, has taken a deep look at disclosure policies at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The battleground over transparency on food origins and ingredients is much wider than labeling of foods that contain genetically modified ingredients, as journalist Elizabeth Grossman points out in a recent piece in Civil Eats.
The Center for Food Safety has sued the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service under the Freedom of Information Act for withholding information on genetically modified crops (GMOs), after unsuccessfully seeking information over a period of 13 years.
Federal agencies sometimes wait years to respond to Freedom of Information Act requests, then ask if they are still interested in receiving the requested information. Now the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy has issued an official "guidance" that frowns slightly on overuse of the "still interested?" practice.
"The facts show the state's purpose in enacting the statute was to protect industrial animal agriculture by silencing its critics," district Judge B. Lynn Winmill wrote. Sometimes investigative journalists need to go undercover. And sometimes muckraking journalists need undercover whistleblowers to tip them to abuses.
Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (pictured) has proposed a bill that would (among other things) set a flat $200 annual fee to permit unlimited shooting by small film crews. Now E&E Daily reports Murkowski's filmmaker nephew faced the fees-and-permits barrier when he wanted to shoot near her father's home, surrounded by the Tongass National Forest.
Here are some recently leaked CRS reports of relevance to environmental journalists, as well as the latest on the debate following the NYT editorial calling for the reports to be made public.Topics on the Beat:
The WatchDog has long whined about Congress' mystifying refusal to let taxpayers read Congressional Research Service reports the taxpayers have paid for. A June 17, 2015, editorial in the New York Times called the situation "absurd," expressing hope that a new director of the Library of Congress (home of the CRS) would manage to get the policy changed.
Congress, you may remember, has exempted itself from the requirements for open government — and that included a ban on publishing taxpayer-funded explainers by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Thanks to the Federation of American Scientists, you can read them anyway.Topics on the Beat:Region: