667 research outputs found

    Cooperation and Coordination Are Invasive Species: Important for Effective Management of Invasive Weeds

    Get PDF
    Invasive weeds, native or nonnative plant species, cause harm to natural areas such as rangelands or wildlife habitat and economic impacts due to lost productivity of these areas. While the federal investment in combating invasive species is substantial most has been concentrated on agricultural lands, not on natural areas. In this report, GAO describes (1) the entities that address invasive weeds in natural areas and the funding sources they use; (2) federal, state, and local weed management officials’ views on the barriers to weed management; and (3) their opinions about how additional resources for weed management could be distributed. GAO limited this study to entities in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior, and California, Colorado, Idaho, Maryland, and Mississippi, and gathered information through interviews of over 90 weed management officials

    THE TREND TOWARDS IMPLEMENTING THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE IN US REGULATION OF NANOMATERIALS

    Get PDF
    The precautionary principle provides a framework for regulating emerging technologies in general and nanomaterials in particular. It counsels action in the presence of uncertainties about risk instead of assuming that nanomaterials are safe unless proven hazardous. Nanomaterials are regulated under different statutory programs depending on whether they are drugs, pesticides or other commercial chemicals. Recent developments in the regulation of nanomaterials that are not drugs or pesticides have demonstrated a trend towards application of the precautionary principle. This is a paradigm shift away from the requirement built into past interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) that manufacturing, processing and use of chemical substances cannot be restricted unless the regulatory authority proves an unreasonable risk. This same paradigm shift is incorporated into recent legislative proposals to amend TSCA

    Scientific and Legal Perspectives on Science Generated for Regulatory Activities

    Get PDF
    This article originated from a conference that asked “Should scientific work conducted for purposes of advocacy before regulatory agencies or courts be judged by the same standards as science conducted for other purposes?” In the article, which focuses on the regulatory advocacy context, we argue that it can be and should be. First, we describe a set of standards and practices currently being used to judge the quality of scientific research and testing and explain how these standards and practices assist in judging the quality of research and testing regardless of why the work was conducted. These standards and practices include the federal Information Quality Act, federal Good Laboratory Practice standards, peer review, disclosure of funding sources, and transparency in research policies. The more that scientific information meets these standards and practices, the more likely it is to be of high quality, reliable, reproducible, and credible. We then explore legal issues that may be implicated in any effort to create special rules for science conducted specifically for a regulatory proceeding. Federal administrative law does not provide a basis for treating information in a given proceeding differently depending on its source or the reason for which it was generated. To the contrary, this law positively assures that interested persons have the right to offer their technical expertise toward the solution of regulatory problems. Any proposal to subject scientific information generated for the purpose of a regulatory proceeding to more demanding standards than other scientific information considered in that proceeding would clash with this law and would face significant administrative complexities. In a closely related example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered but abandoned a program to implement standards aimed at “external” information

    Generic drug competition: The pharmaceutical industry “gaming” controversy

    Full text link
    Among American adults 20 years and older, 59 percent take at least one prescription drug on a regular basis. Unlike most branded drugs, which are generally drugs that have a trade name and are protected by a patent, off‐patent generic drugs make up approximately 90 percent of prescriptions annually filled in the United States; yet in 2017, generic drugs made up only 23 percent of total drug costs in the U.S. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has taken the lead in encouraging increased competition in the nation’s prescription drug marketplace, most recently with its release of the agency’s Drug Competition Action Plan, but also with its regulatory guidance and enforcement efforts to eliminate “gaming” of the regulatory process by both branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Such “gaming” activities include “pay‐for‐delay” agreements involving financial compensation between branded and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to forestall the emergence into the market of generic pharmaceuticals to compete against a formerly patent‐protected branded drug. A combination of new enabling legislation, federal judicial guidance, and agency regulatory activities show promise in encouraging increased competition in the prescription drug marketplace, with the American consumer the ultimate beneficiary of lower health care costs and improved overall personal health.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152498/1/basr12186_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/152498/2/basr12186.pd

    Does inconvenience explain low take-up? Evidence from unemployment insurance

    Full text link
    Application inconvenience is one popular explanation for why many individuals do not receive the social benefits for which they are eligible. Applications take time and some individuals may decide that the financial benefits do not outweigh these time costs. This paper investigates this explanation using cross-state variation in administrative changes that made applying for unemployment insurance (UI) benefits substantially more convenient over the past decade. We find that the introduction of phone- and Internet-based claiming did not have an appreciable impact on overall UI take-up, nor did it lead to a shift toward recipients that are higher income or likely to be receiving the maximum benefit amount. These findings are inconsistent with a time- and transaction-cost explanation for low take-up, since remote UI claiming is less time intensive. This suggests that reducing application barriers alone may not be an effective tool for increasing program participation. © 2010 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64570/1/20481_ftp.pd
    corecore