The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is facing a crisis of confidence as sources reveal political pressure threatening to undercut its science evaluating chemical safety for consumers. The Trump administration's EPA is accused of altering safety reviews to downplay risks to human health and the environment, with scientists feeling pressured to make chemicals appear safe by using unrealistic test parameters. This is particularly concerning given the Trump administration's rollback of environmental and climate regulations and its installation of former chemical industry insiders and lobbyists to lead key agency offices overseeing chemical regulation.
The EPA's chemical safety office conducts health risk assessments for a wide range of chemicals, including those found in household cleaners and cosmetics. However, scientists are now questioning the integrity of these assessments due to the political pressure they face. One employee described the situation as "abnormal," with decisions being made at the political level, down to the smallest detail.
The EPA's chemical safety office is tasked with assessing and regulating chemicals, but the current administration is pushing back against the use of "DEI" (diversity, equity, and inclusion) analysis, which considers the impact of chemicals on specific racial groups. This is despite the fact that certain racial groups may be more susceptible to harm from certain chemicals due to underlying health conditions or physiological factors. One career EPA employee noted that "we know certain races have predispositions to certain diseases," and that these predispositions may make them more sensitive to certain chemicals.
The EPA's new leadership, including former chemical industry lobbyists, is also being accused of putting their thumbs on the scales for the reviews in an industry-friendly direction. For example, Nancy Beck, a former senior position at the American Chemistry Council, was involved in revising a risk assessment of formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, to nearly double the safe exposure levels, a big win for the chemical industry.
The EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), which has traditionally been used to evaluate whether a chemical is a toxin, is also being replaced with a system that allows individual program offices, run by political appointees, to make scientific determinations about chemical hazard. This shift could make the science more vulnerable to political influence and could lead to an "explosion of bad health impacts" years from now, according to one scientist.
The EPA's actions have raised concerns among environmental advocates and scientists, who fear that the agency is prioritizing industry interests over public health. The agency's recent moves, such as rescinding and restarting regulations on four PFAS chemicals, have been seen as industry-friendly and have been linked to a range of health issues, including cancer, obesity, and thyroid disease.
The EPA's response to these allegations has been defensive, with the agency defending its science and claiming that it is using realistic exposure scenarios and being transparent about assumptions and uncertainties. However, the agency's actions and the experiences of its employees suggest that political pressure is threatening to undercut the EPA's ability to conduct independent and objective science.
