USLegal Reporter

The US government has added polar bears to its list of animals to be protected under the Endangered Species Act. Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne made the annoucement on Wednesday after recommendations from the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

A report by the US Geological Survey said loss of sea ice as a result of global warming could lead to a destruction of the animal’s habitat and 2/3rds of the species within the next 50 years.

Sources: http://www.doi.gov/news/08_News_Releases/080514a.html

The US Senate on Thursday passed one of the strongest consumer product safety bills in more than a decade. The legislation calls for an overhaul of the Consumer Product Safety Commission to be more response to consumer complaints about product safety.

Most notably, the bill calls for the creation of a public database to allow consumers great access to product complaints. It will also increase funding and staff for the agency. It also seeks to strengthen testing on children’s products including reducing the amont of lead allowed in toys.

The bill is a tougher version than the House passed in December.

House and Senate leaders will now meet to sort out differences before sending the legislation to President Bush. 

Source: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/03/cpsc_senate.html

The Food and Drug Adminstration issued a public health advisory on Thursday cautioning parents against giving children under the age of 2 over the counter cough and cold medications.

Among the biggest concerns to pediatricians are that the ingredients in the medicine can make children hyperactive, irritable and can even be deadly. A 2005 study conducted by the Centers for Disease Control found that over a one year period, more than 1,500 babies and toddlers ended up in hospital emergency rooms after being given doses of cough and cold medicine.  

On October 12, 2007, a group of pharmaceutical companies lead by Johnson & Johnson and Wyeth voluntarily recalled the infant medicines. However, the FDA felt the new advisory was warranted since many parents still likely have medications at home or have not heard of the warnings.

Source: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jan2008/db20080117_066199.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_companies 

Three groups sent notice today to federal agencies and officials within the Bush Administration that they plan to sue the government for failing to add polar bears to the threatened species list as authorized by the Endangered Species Act.

The Center for Biological Diversity, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and Greenpeace say that polar bears are at great risk of extinction because of global warming. The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service missed a deadline today to protect polar bears under the Act saying the agency needs more time to study the issue. 

The formal notice by the conservation groups must be sent before a lawsuit can be filed.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries both share responsibility for administration of the Endangered Species Act.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9NGJ0_eVkxqgpEFC6RMHVlvT9qwD8U2I4R81 

In a 5-4 decision issued today, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of a coalition of States and environmental groups petitioning for the reversal of a D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision allowing the EPA to indefinitely postpone the regulation of automobile carbon dioxide emission levels under the Clean Air Act. On remand, the EPA is required to explain its reluctance in terms of the hurdles set by the Act rather than through the impermissible “laundry list” offered to date.

At issue was not only the interpretation of key language in the Clean Air Act and the propriety of the EPA’s “judgment” that regulations need not be propagated, but also whether the Petitioners had legal “standing” to bring the case. Five Justices ruled that the State of Massachusetts had standing both as a sovereign State (rather than an “individual” to whom proving the elements of standing is more difficult) and also through procedural rights to challenge EPA decision-making granted by the Act.

The Court’s four conservative Justices dissented on all points. The White House and a coalition of auto manufacturers and associated States were disappointed by the decision.

The case is Massachusetts et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et al. No. 05-1120. Decided April 2, 2007. http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1120.pdf