▼ Summary
– Industry groups lobbied to limit the EPA’s use of health risk assessments for chemicals, achieving a major victory with the dismantling of its Office of Research and Development (ORD).
– EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s decision to eliminate ORD aligns with industry goals, though no direct layoffs or reassignments were requested.
– Over 80 industry groups, led by the American Chemistry Council, urged Zeldin to stop relying on ORD’s chemical risk assessments, casting uncertainty on the IRIS program.
– The American Chemistry Council criticized the IRIS program for lacking transparency and scientific rigor, claiming it harms competitiveness and national priorities.
– A former EPA official defended ORD’s scientific integrity, stating its work undergoes intense scrutiny and upholds high standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency has shuttered its primary scientific research division, a move that aligns with chemical industry demands to reduce oversight of potentially hazardous substances. This decision marks a major shift in how the agency evaluates health risks associated with industrial chemicals, raising concerns among environmental advocates.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin confirmed the closure of the Office of Research and Development (ORD) late last week, effectively dismantling the agency’s internal scientific review capabilities. While no mass layoffs were announced, the elimination of this critical department fulfills a key request from industry groups seeking to minimize regulatory hurdles.
Earlier this year, more than 80 trade associations, representing petroleum, mining, agriculture, and chemical manufacturing interests, petitioned Zeldin to stop relying on ORD’s risk assessments. Their January letter, spearheaded by the American Chemistry Council, argued that the agency’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) produced flawed conclusions that hindered business operations.
A spokesperson for the chemical industry group defended the EPA’s restructuring, stating that IRIS assessments often lacked scientific rigor and transparency, ultimately harming economic competitiveness. They emphasized the need for efficient use of taxpayer funds but did not address how the loss of independent research would impact public health safeguards.
Critics, however, warn that dissolving ORD removes a vital check on industry influence. Christopher Frey, a former EPA official and current academic, described the office’s work as rigorously peer-reviewed science designed to withstand intense scrutiny. Without this internal research capacity, future chemical evaluations may rely more heavily on data provided by the very industries being regulated.
The long-term consequences remain unclear, but environmental scientists fear the decision could weaken protections for air, water, and workplace safety. As regulatory processes evolve, the absence of independent risk analysis may leave communities vulnerable to underreported hazards.
(Source: Ars Technica)
