The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was “pleased’ when an independent panel conducted a peer review of the EPA’s computer methods used to develop a greenhouse gas emission rulemaking “to calculate the impact of indirect land use change in its Renewable Fuel Standard-2 proposed rule” and found the EPA's methods to be acceptable.Following the release of the peer review many advocates of ethanol are questioning the EPA’s motives. Specifically, they are wondering if the agency didn’t “stack the deck” against ethanol and perhaps other biofuels too. The National Corn Growers Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (MN), among other groups, believe the panel the EPA selected contained individuals who are notoriously anti-ethanol.
In his article found in the Delta Farm Press, Forrest Laws quotes Renewable Fuels Association President Bob Dinneen as stating:
“By adding lawyers and advocates to a scientific review panel, EPA bureaucrats have made a mockery of the administration’s commitment to sound science . . . These reviews absolutely cannot be viewed as objective or unbiased. Many of these reviewers have repeatedly and openly demonstrated unabashed and politically-motivated biases against biofuels in the past, which immediately casts a long shadow of doubt over the legitimacy of EPA’s peer review process.”
For their part, both Chairman Peterson and the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) expressed concerns that the USDA was not included in the scientific-review process despite the department’s knowledge in this field. NCGA President Bob Dickey stated, “[w]e call upon the EPA to modify its approach to reflect the commitment of President Obama to adhere to policies based on sound science and a transparent process.”
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Dickey will get his wish or whether the concerns of those who believe the review was biased will be addressed by the administration or the US Congress when members return from their summer recess.
To read a previous United States Agriculture and Food Law and Policy Blog post click here.
It remains to be seen whether Mr. Dickey will get his wish or whether the concerns of those who believe the review was biased will be addressed by the administration or the US Congress when members return from their summer recess.
To read a previous United States Agriculture and Food Law and Policy Blog post click here.
To read Mr. Laws's article on the Delta Farm Press website click here.
Posted: 08/17/09
