I have to agree with a lot of what the Richster wrote:
TRI WAS a hummin' little program until industry got wise
to the fact that it was doing their companies a lot of
public relations damage, and leaned on the agency to make
some "improvements."
Although what I heard through the grapevine, Rich,
is that one of the reasons the Office of Information was
created within OPPTS, was to get some of the entrenched pro-industry
people in the Pesticide Office, to mix with the good information
providers in the TRI office, in the hopes that the "right-to-
know" ethic would rub off on the pesticide people. But maybe
the plan backfired, and worked the other way around.
Rich is also right about the ratio of industry lobbyists to
environmental reps at EPA meetings; in the pesticide field,
I sometimes attend meetings where the audience is a sea
of grey $600 Ag-chem industry lobbyist suits, all the five-minute
"public comments" are from trade associations, and there
isn't an environmentalist in sight. This is not EPA' fault --
the public meetings are open to everyone, even scruffy
reporters, and the environmental people tell me they are
stretched pretty thin, and can't afford to attend all these events.
Despite the obvious cynicism I've developed from 15 years
of covering different EPA program offices, I still would
like to believe that this online conference on information
access will make a difference. At the very least, maybe Carol
Browner will look at the results of this meeting and be
persuaded to shift any discretionary funds she has left
over after Congress slashes this year's EPA budget into
improving information systems and streamlining the FOIA
process at EPA, so we can get at some of the raw data EPA is
so good at collecting.
Date
|