After nine months of delay by the White House, EPA finally released its long-awaited report on children's health and the environment, finding, most notably, that 8 percent of women ages 16 to 49 have mercury levels in the blood that could lead to reduced IQ and motor-skills for their offspring. This marks the first time EPA has formally acknowledged an increased risk to children's health from mercury, emitted primarily from coal-fired power plants, and signals the need for strong regulatory action. According to knowledgeable sources, this is what caused the White House Office of Management and Budget to launch an extensive -- and unprecedented -- interagency review of the report last year as EPA neared completion. The administration's flagship environmental proposal, the "Clear Skies Initiative," addresses mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants, yet environmental groups have called it a smokescreen that would actually slow pollution reduction scheduled under the Clean Air Act, giving industry more than 15 years to cut mercury emissions by 70 percent. EPA's report gives ammunition to those who advise more aggressive action, and could undermine the administration's effort, which still must receive congressional approval. EPA released the report ("America's Children and the Environment: Measures of Contaminants, Body Burdens, and Illnesses") on Feb. 24, just days after the Wall Street Journal obtained a draft and reported the key findings. In addition to its mercury findings, EPA also reported that childhood asthma rates doubled over the last two decades (climbing from 3.6 percent in 1980 to 8.7 percent in 2001), while the number of children with elevated levels of lead in their blood has decreased dramatically (from 4.7 million in 1978 to 300,000 in 2000). "I believe the only reason we are seeing this report today is that the report was leaked to a newspaper last week," said Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), referring to the Feb. 20 article. Boxer previously wrote to EPA Administrator Christie Whitman and OMB Director Mitch Daniels raising concerns about the report's delay and possible changes by OMB to the scientific findings. In the end, however, the White House's ability to influence the report appears to have been limited. The data presented by EPA is not the result of new original research by the agency; rather, it represents a compilation of a number of previous studies, which made it mostly immune from White House manipulation. For instance, in its evaluation of the health effects of mercury, EPA relied heavily on earlier studies by the National Academy of Sciences and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Of course, it's still possible that EPA was forced to remove certain conclusions or alter the report's tone, but unfortunately, the White House's influence has not been publicly documented. Likewise, it is also unclear exactly who participated in the review. The report lists experts outside government who peer reviewed the report, as well as internal EPA peer reviewers, but gives no account of the seemingly interminable interagency review. According to agency sources, OMB budget staff made the initial request for review, but at some point, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy took over the lead role. As previously reported, EPA also received feedback during an interagency meeting on Aug. 28 attended by staff from the White House, OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and other agencies. However, the names of participants and the content of the discussion are not publicly available because the review fell outside the context of a rulemaking, which has formal transparency requirements. We also do not know how many other interagency meetings (if any) were convened, or why the report's release was held up for so long. EPA put out an earlier report on children's health in 2000 -- which included data on asthma, lead levels, and cancer -- and intended to update it on an annual basis beginning in December of 2001. The agency missed this deadline because of severe staffing limitations and resource constraints, but had the report ready to print in May of 2002. Then OMB stepped in, depriving the public and decision-makers of timely and valuable information to protect children's health. The idea of an annual update now seems impossible. Although EPA's report seems to have emerged mostly intact, the White House review raises troubling implications for future scientific reports. Most significant is the concern that politics will trump science, which is an unfolding theme of the Bush administration. As we report in this issue of the Executive Report, the administration has stacked scientific advisory committees with industry allies and conservative ideologues, which seems designed to stifle efforts for stronger regulation by undercutting the information that supports it. Along the same lines, EPA's report marks the first time, to our knowledge, that the White House has ever involved itself in the shaping of a scientific study. Under executive order, agencies must submit major regulatory proposals to OMB for review. Reports and studies, however, that involve questions of science -- and do not involve a policy decision -- have always been left to regulatory agencies, which have the technical expertise and statutory obligation to address these issues. Not surprisingly, high-level EPA officials reportedly questioned the White House -- apparently without success -- about the appropriateness of the OMB-initiated review. OMB, after all, has no scientific expertise on the environmental factors affecting children's health, raising concern that it might bend findings to suit political purposes. This administration, in particular, would have plenty of motivation to do so. A report or study on health or environmental problems can often create pressure for regulation, which the administration -- because of its corporate ties and laissez faire ideology -- is loath to pursue. If the White House can shape a report's findings before it's made public, it can head off calls for stronger regulation and protect its political soft spot. In the case of EPA's children's health report, the White House, after much delay, grudgingly relented. Yet the precedent has been set, and next time, it could be different.