Grading PolitiFact (Virginia): Morgan Griffith milking it?

The issue:

The fact checkers:

Jacob Geigner:  writer, researcher
Warren Fiske:  editor

Analysis:

Skipping past the cutesy introductory comments PolitiFact often offers to the meat of the story:

In a February newsletter to constituents, Griffith claimed that new EPA rules treat milk spills the same way they treat oil spills. He titled the newsletter "Crying over spilt milk." 

"What do spilt milk and oil have in common?" he wrote. "Quite a bit, according to the EPA. In fact, a new ruling by the EPA would force dairy farmers to comply with the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Program when dealing with spilt milk -- the same regulations oil and natural gas producers must follow. The EPA’s reasoning is that milk contains ‘a percentage of animal fats, which is a non-petroleum oil.’ It appears spilt milk is just as threatening as an oil spill."

The quotation from Griffith comes with sufficient context so that it accurately represents the content of the newsletter.  Good so far.

PolitiFact:

Beth Breeding, Griffith’s press secretary, said her boss’s information came from the EPA’s website. So we went there.

Right away, we found problems with Griffith’s claim. The website says milk has been regulated under the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure program since 1973, when the Clean Water Act took effect. The law was passed by Congress the preceding year over the veto of Republican President Richard Nixon. So this is hardly a "new ruling," as Griffith says. It has been in effect for 38 years.

Skepticism is warranted.  Bear that in mind as we allow Geigner to proceed with his case:

The EPA site says "since the SPCC rule became law in 1973, all kinds of oils including petroleum and edible oils (such as animal fats and vegetable oils) have been considered oils. This is because the SPCC rule gets its definition of ‘oil’ from the Clean Water Act, which was authored by Congress."

Who's buying it?

Here's how the Clean Water Act reads:

OIL AND HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE LIABILITY 

SEC. 311. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term—(1) ‘‘oil’’ means oil of any kind or in any form, including, but not limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil;

The EPA apparently wants us to believe that if we have a tanker of water with some peppermint oil added to it then the tanker of water is subject to regulation under the hazardous waste procedures mandated by the Clean Water Act.  Who's buying it?  And who's buying the notion that the EPA has been duly regulating milk under the Clean Water Act since roughly 1973?  Anybody?

Oh.  PolitiFact buys it.

PolitiFact:

So what’s new?  According to the EPA, the only thing that comes close is a rule change it announced on Jan. 15, 2009. It goes in effect at the end of this month. 

The simple purpose of the change is to exclude milk and dairy farms from the spill rules governing oil products. That’s the exact opposite of what Griffith claims. Here’s what the regulation says:

"EPA proposes to exempt milk containers and associated piping and appurtenances from the SPCC requirements provided they are constructed according to the current applicable 3-A Sanitary Standards, and are subject to the current applicable Grade "A" Pasteurized Milk Ordinance," or similar state laws.

Translated into plain English, the rule means milk storage will no longer have to meet the EPA’s oil spill rules, provided storage tanks meet pasteurization laws. In Virginia it is illegal to sell "raw," or unpasteurized, milk, so the state’s dairy farmers should already be in compliance with the new standards. 

To parrot PolitiFact, there are immediate problems with the EPA's explanation and PolitiFact's acceptance of the same.

If it is true that there is nothing new in the regulations other than an exemption for milk storage, then why has the milk production industry clamored for the exemption as though it provides relief from new requirements?  On its face, it makes no sense.

A journalist ought to wonder why the dairy industry thinks it is encountering a new burden if not for the exemption.

The New York Farm Bureau has an explanation:

The SPCC rules were revised in 2002 but left considerable ambiguity about the regulations’ impact on milk, which can be considered a non petroleum-oil because of its butterfat content. In 2005, an EPA presentation made clear that the current SPCC policies could be applied to milk. Since then, milk producers have been working to ensure that EPA regulations don’t apply to milk producers. The Bush administration proposed a rule to officially exempt milk producers from any SPCC regulations, but the rule was held up as part of the Obama administration’s complete review of all EPA rules proposed under the previous administration. A rule exempting milk has never been finalized.

Now doesn't that sound quite a bit more plausible than "milk has been regulated under the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure program since 1973, when the Clean Water Act took effect"?  It is exactly the sort of information that helps fill the gaping hole in Geigner's story.

The EPA ring through Geigner's nose leads to the EPA-friendly conclusion:

Let’s review our findings.

Griffith claimed a "new ruling by the EPA would force dairy farmers to comply" with strict regulations for spills and leaks. He said the rules were the same as those enforced on oil and natural gas companies.

In fact, these regulations have been in place for 38 years and are not new at all. The "new ruling" from the EPA, announced in 2009 and taking effect in a few weeks, actually excludes milk from the spill standards, giving dairy farmers fewer regulations to meet. That’s the exact opposite of what Griffith claims.

Sure, Griffith got some of his information from an inaccurate editorial in The Wall Street Journal. But a  congressman who is railing against a federal agency has the means to get his facts right.

Griffith is dishing udder cow chips. We rate his statement False.

Way to go, EPA.  You made Geigner miss the story.  And somehow you did it so well that he ended up inserting some haughty 'tude in the text.

Even if we were somehow able to ignore the hole in Geigner's story, he couldn't justify the "False" rating for Griffith.  Geigner implicitly admits that raw milk producers will not obtain the proposed exemption.  So Griffith is "Barely True" at worst since the lack of an exemption makes his statement at least somewhat true.  Under current rules and lacking any exemption or delay in enforcement, raw milk spills would be treated like petroleum spills by the EPA.  And that would apparently remain the case under the permanent exemption promised in the spring.

This piece warrants the special tag "journalists reporting badly."

The grades:

Jacob Geigner:  F
Warren Fiske:  F


March 14, 2011:  I repented about the words I used to describe the hole in the story.  I chose them poorly and they did not accurately communicate the truth of the matter.  I've preserved the old wording for posterity  below: 


"why has the milk production industry clamored for time to meet the exemption standards?"
"A journalist ought to wonder why the dairy industry needs time to comply with an exemption standard."

Apologies to any who were confused or misled.