Questions About the Gulf

The New York Times

The Obama administration owes the American people plain talk about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico — particularly about how much oil remains and the dangers to humans, wildlife and the environment.

The White House last fully addressed the issue in early August. A report by government scientists declared that three-quarters of the five million barrels spilled had disappeared — skimmed, burned, dispersed. Top officials took to the airwaves to celebrate the news.

This rosy narrative has since been badly shaken. Scientists at the University of Georgia said last week that the rate of evaporation and biological breakdown had been greatly exaggerated. Another team of scientists wrote in the journal Science about the discovery of a vast 22-mile underwater oil plume the size of Manhattan. Most alarmingly, they said they saw little evidence that the oil was being rapidly consumed by the gulf’s petroleum-eating microbes, raising the possibility of significant future damage to the ecosystem.

No one is accepting these studies as the last word, and there is no evidence that the White House is being dishonest. Jane Lubchenco, the respected marine biologist who runs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has said that plumes undoubtedly exist.

But the public is rightly confused, and with that confusion comes legitimate concern. If the country’s top officials cannot get a handle on how bad the spill is, how can anyone be sure that they have the right strategy to address it? A smart approach would be for the White House to convene a team of respected scientists, in and out of government, to reach a measured understanding of the truth. Consensus may be impossible, given the breadth and complexity of this spill. But the public will at least know that its leaders are seeking clarity.

The administration, meanwhile, finds itself challenged on another issue about which it has expressed great confidence: the safety of fish and other seafood coming from the gulf. Senior government officials announced flatly last Monday that it is safe to eat fish and shrimp caught in the 78 percent of federal waters in the gulf that are open to fishing.

We are eager to see the fishing industry back on its feet and the region rebound. And we were reassured when, after hearings last week, Representative Edward Markey — the Massachusetts Democrat and scourge of both BP and the government — said he believes that the seafood now available is largely risk-free. He also said he thought that the responsible agencies have been diligent in testing fish in areas where fishing is now allowed.

Even so, Mr. Markey expressed legitimate fears about the future impact of the spill and said the government is not doing nearly enough research in off-limits areas where oil still exists and where testing could provide a roadmap for problems that may lie ahead.

Still other complaints have been leveled by environmental groups for what they believe is the Food and Drug Administration’s failure to issue more precise and stringent warnings about the potential health risks for children, pregnant women and other vulnerable groups.

These flaws are correctable. The administration’s larger problem is one of credibility, which can only be fixed with much clearer answers about the spill.