In response to allegations of suppression of science, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recently released a draft report that the agency will continue to modify due to CDC concerns that the report too closely links environmental pollution with adverse health effects in the Great Lakes region.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced March 12 its revision to the national air quality standard for ozone, or smog. While the new standard is an improvement, EPA did not go as far as its own scientists had recommended. Last-minute changes orchestrated by the White House have also mired the rule change in controversy. In addition to the new standard, EPA proposed legislative changes to the Clean Air Act, which environmentalists and lawmakers immediately criticized.

At a Jan. 17 hearing, the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming questioned the true motives behind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) delay in deciding whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species.

In 2007, new regulatory policies and the inability of federal agencies to protect the public made headlines more so than at any time in recent memory. Four themes dominated regulatory policy this year: an increase in White House influence over agency rulemaking activity and discretion, which added a perception of more political manipulation; the inability of the federal government to protect the public by ensuring the safety of imported goods; the voice of some industry groups calling for regulation; and the Bush administration's refusal to regulate in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence, as in the case of climate change. At best, government has attempted to respond to crises instead of getting ahead of the curve. This has left the public uncertain about whether we can count on our government to provide adequate safeguards.