Independence of the F.D.A. - NYTimes.com Re "White House and the F.D.A. at Odds" (front page, April 3): Even in a Democratic administration we see that useful and appropriate health and safety standards - like the Food and Drug Administration's proposal to require chain movie theaters to post calorie counts for their saturated-fat-laden popcorn - are scotched because a political adviser to the president fears that Fox News will mock them. That's hardly a science-based argument! It's not much observed in Washington, but in such conflicts, the relevant law actually puts the power in the hands of the regulatory agency, in this case the F.D.A., and not the White House. In actual practice, political staff members in the White House often manage to intimidate the agencies, bending them to their political will. But if agency leaders were determined, they could nevertheless issue regulations over White House objections. They'd risk being fired, but the White House would have to pay a political price for that as well. Congress empowered the agencies for a good reason: It's the agencies that have the necessary expertise to sift through the scientific evidence and craft standards and rules. But that expertise gets harder and harder to attract as each successive White House devalues it at the expense of public health and safety. The writer is president of the Center for Progressive Reform and a professor at the University of Maryland Carey School of Law.