Peter GleickJan 26, 2025
Ever wondered WHY Trump and his allies are so viciously attacking and cutting science?
It's because science puts the lie to everything they're trying to do. It identifies the real people and actions causing our problems. It exposes the truth behind their disinformation.
Science not silence.
Show threadDerick Rethans

@petergleick One of the podcasts I listen to, the Skeptics Guide to the Universe, had an interesting section on why the FDA is banning Red Dye #3 (it's not because it's unsafe).

In short, due to the Supreme Court axing the Chevron Deference, and with this as precedent, using ideology instead of science based policy making is wide open.

The transcript is at
https://www.sgutranscripts.org/wiki/SGU_Episode_1020#FDA_Bans_Red_Dye_No._3_(41:12) - it is also well worth a listen.

SGU Episode 1020 - SGUTranscripts

Jan 26, 2025 at 10:51pmWeb
Show threadEric MarshJan 27, 2025
@derickr @petergleick I downloaded and just started listening to this, at your suggestion. My initial take is the Chevron deference link might be a stretch. It seems like if agencies have more power then they should be more susceptible to ideological swings, not less. Our congress isn’t good at passing laws so passing laws at the whim of activists seems hard. (I would not be surprised to learn that the ban is based on activism and not science, however.)
Show threadDerick RethansJan 27, 2025
@vrguy @petergleick Since that post/toot, I also found this BBC article which explains it a little better, IMO. But this was before the Red Due #3 precedent: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c51ywwrq45qo
What is the Chevron deference and why has it been overruled?

The Supreme Court has overturned a longstanding legal precedent, and weakened agencies like the EPA.

BBC News
Show threadEric MarshJan 28, 2025
@derickr @petergleick Yeah Chevron deference isn’t the big deal most think it is. It was only in use for 30 years. Courts can still accept FDA’s interpretation but now they don’t just defer completely to their expertise. I haven’t yet finished the podcast, so I can’t comment on the actual red dye issue yet.
Show threadEric MarshJan 28, 2025
@derickr @petergleick My thought was broader though in that generally I’d expect laws get made much slower than agency rules, so eliminating chevron deference should mean less of this type of rule making to appease petition writers. Our congress is too useless to pass laws this effectively.
Show threadEric MarshJan 28, 2025
@derickr OK I listened this morning. My takeaway is yes because of how laws are currently written with Chevron deference in mind, there will be some issues. But I don’t understand why the hosts are worried that executive agencies won’t have enough power and at the same time they seem to be worried about Trump. I would worry that if we still had Chevron deference his FDA could outlaw birth control or something and a court wouldn’t be able to review the decision.
Show threadDerick RethansJan 28, 2025
@vrguy I don't share your optimism that this is a net positive.
Show threadEric MarshJan 28, 2025
@derickr I’m unsure if it’s net positive. Over the next four years, I would say anything that limits power is a good thing. However, putting aside outcome based opinions, it doesn’t matter if it’s better or worse. There’s a fair argument to be made that Chevron deference was invented from thin air in the first place.
Show threadEric MarshJan 28, 2025
@derickr The other thing is it isn’t true that experts won’t be involved anymore in decisions. The courts are not supposed to be making rulings with no input from the agencies.