By JIM RUTLEDGE

D.C. Correspondent

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. EPA’s move to discontinue its Office of the Science Advisor (OSA) and disband the agency’s critical science review panels leaves the U.S. president without the agency’s top science counsel – a post created in 1992 to advise administrations on scientific research underpinning health and environmental regulations.

In defending the EPA’s move, agency spokesman John Konkus said in an email to Farm World from the science advisor, Dr. Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, that “EPA is not dissolving the Office of Science Advisor. We are combining EPA’s OSA and the Office of Science Policy to create a new office to better coordinate and manage our work.”

“This new, proposed structure,” Konkus said, “will enhance our ability to coordinate science across the agency and reinforce our scientific integrity policy.”

According to the agency’s website, Orme-Zavaleta has worked for the EPA since 1981 and is an expert on the risks of chemicals to human health. Konkus did not say if she would remain with the agency nor whether her staff was being buried “deep within the agency,” according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a science-oriented environmental nonprofit.

The move to merge the OSA into an office that reports to the agency’s politically appointed deputy assistant administrator for science is an apparent demotion that would put at least two more managerial layers between the chief scientist and its top policy decision-maker.

Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS, said, “It’s a pretty big demotion, a pretty big burying of this office. Everything from research on chemicals and health, to peer review testing to data analysis, would inevitably suffer.”

In various media accounts, Halpern stated the panel’s reorganization does not mean EPA scientists will be unable to perform their work, but it could make them more “vulnerable to political interference.”

What direct effect it would have on farming, he told Farm World, “I don’t really have much expertise related to food and agriculture issues at the EPA.”

One of the EPA science panels reportedly shutting down is the 20-person Particulate Matter Review Panel made up of experts in microscopic airborne pollutants known to cause respiratory disease. It is responsible for helping the agency decide what levels of pollutants are safe to breathe. A second panel studying ground-level ozone was also dropped.

Konkus said, “Contrary to some media reports, EPA has not disbanded the panels to review science about ground-level ozone and particulate matter.”

Instead, he said the agency has “appointed” five new members to the restructured seven-member Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). This committee, the EPA states, is “tasked with leading the review of any necessary changes to air quality standards for ozone or particulate matter.”

Gretchen Goldman, research director for UCS, said, “To me this is part of a pattern. We’re seeing EPA trying to cut science out of the process.”

In addition, EPA dismissed the head of its Office of Children’s Health, Dr. Ruth Etzel, placing her on administrative leave without explanation. She pushed to tighten regulations on pollution, clashing multiple times with the White House, that sought to loosen pollution rules, according to a recent report in The New York Times.

The EPA’s acting administrator, Andrew Wheeler – a former coal industry lobbyist – has decided to concentrate science reviews to the CASAC made up mostly of political appointees, sparking objections that the EPA is intent on skewing the outcome of science reviews in favor of industry, according to Environment and Energy News.

Farm World reached out to a number of groups that have in the past issued comments with regard to agriculture and farming issues but, in this instance, most declined comment or issued only brief statements.

The Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM), a strong supporter of farmers, first stated it was “working on developing a position.” Angela Huffman, director of communication and research, said a day later, “While our leadership has individual opinions on this issue, they decided it is outside our mandate to take a position.”

Sarah Graddy, a spokesperson for the Environmental Working Group, also supporters of the ag community, said in an email, “We don’t have an opinion on this issue at this time.”

Lori Sallet, director of media relations for the American Farmland Trust, a nonprofit group representing farmland protection and environmentally sound farming practices, said in an email, “We do not have a comment. This issue is not among the issues on which we maintain expertise.”

Patty Lovera, director of policy for Food and Water Watch for Justice, said, “The EPA’s plan to dissolve the OSA is just the latest attempt by the Trump administration to tie the hands of the agency and limit its ability to protect the environment and public health. Separating the role of science advisor from the decision-makers at the EPA is a step backwards.”

The chair of the House Committee on Agriculture, Rep. K. Michael Conaway (R-Texas), did not respond to a request to comment. Patrick Delaney, spokesman for committee Ranking Member Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), said in an email, “This isn’t something Rep. Peterson has an opinion on at this moment, but we’ll keep an eye on it.”

In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences recommended the EPA create an office of science advisor to “ensure that EPA policy decisions are informed by a clear understanding of relevant science.” Trump’s former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, in 2017 cut a half-dozen scientists and academics of advisory positions and issued new rules barring anyone who receives EPA grant money from serving on panels that counsel the agency on scientific decisions.