Career scientists at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are facing internal pressure to alter health risk assessments for common chemicals found in cosmetics and household cleaners. According to agency employees, supervisors are pushing staff to downplay potential health risks and remove considerations of how chemicals may disproportionately impact specific racial groups, raising concerns about the integrity of the chemical review process under the current administration.
Why are EPA scientists concerned about chemical risk assessments?
Staff members within the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention report being directed to “work backward” to ensure chemicals are deemed safe. According to current and former career employees, supervisors have requested that scientists explore “alternative scenarios”—such as reducing the duration or intensity of exposure—to minimize the appearance of risk. One employee noted that they are often asked, “How can we fix this? What can we do to make this risk go away?” before a full analysis is even completed. These scientists, who spoke anonymously due to fears of professional retribution, argue that these practices lack a scientific basis and threaten to hide dangers like cancer, birth defects, and endocrine disruption.
The Toxic Substances Control Act, originally passed in 1976, grandfathered in approximately 62,000 chemicals that were already on the market, meaning they were not required to undergo an initial health risk review by the EPA.
How has the EPA’s approach to chemical safety changed?
The agency is currently shifting its internal structure and methodology regarding how it defines toxicity. A recent internal memo revealed the EPA will move away from relying on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a standalone scientific program used for decades to evaluate chemical hazards. Instead, the agency will allow individual program offices—led by political appointees—to make their own scientific determinations. Critics, including former agency officials, suggest this move centralizes power in the hands of political leadership, many of whom have backgrounds as chemical industry lobbyists. For instance, Nancy Beck, the principal deputy assistant administrator, previously held senior roles at the American Chemistry Council. Sources report that Beck was instrumental in reopening the risk assessment for formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, which resulted in a proposal to nearly double the level of considered “safe” exposure.
What is the status of diversity and equity in EPA research?
Scientists have been instructed to stop considering how a chemical’s impact might vary across different racial groups. Career employees report that analyses incorporating these demographic considerations are now labeled as “DEI” and removed from assessments. Scientists dispute this characterization, noting that evaluating predispositions to certain diseases among specific populations is a standard method for understanding chemical sensitivity. The EPA has not provided comment on these specific allegations regarding the removal of racial considerations from their research.
When reviewing EPA chemical assessments, look for the “fit-for-purpose exposure and fate modeling” section. The agency maintains that its decisions are grounded in peer-reviewed literature and real-world monitoring data, despite internal concerns regarding the “refining” of risk narratives.
FAQ: Understanding EPA Chemical Regulation
- What is the role of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention?
This office is tasked with assessing and regulating chemicals to protect human health and the environment, including managing risks under the Toxic Substances Control Act. - Are all chemicals on the market fully assessed?
No. Thousands of chemicals currently in consumer products have never been fully assessed for their impact on human health, a backlog the EPA is under court-ordered deadlines to address for high-priority substances. - What is the status of PFAS regulations?
The EPA recently announced plans to “rescind and restart” regulations on four PFAS chemicals, which are linked to various health issues including thyroid disease and immune system damage.
Have you observed changes in how environmental regulations are impacting your community? Share your thoughts in the comments below or subscribe to our newsletter for ongoing updates on federal environmental policy.
