Trump EPA Accused of Manipulating Safety Data on Highly Toxic Flame Retardant

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has faced criticism for its close ties to industries it regulates. However, the controversy surrounding the highly toxic flame retardant TBBPA takes this issue to a new level of egregiousness. Public health advocates claim that the agency is manipulating safety data to downplay the risks associated with TBBPA, which is used in electronics, children’s clothing, and other products.

The issue extends beyond TBBPA itself, highlighting broader concerns about public health and environmental policy under the Trump administration. The EPA’s actions on this front demonstrate the dangers of industry capture and the erosion of scientific integrity in regulatory decision-making.

TBBPA has been linked to hormone disruption, brain damage, immune system toxicity, and developmental harms in children, including reproductive and nervous system problems. It is also classified as a probable carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer. Yet, the EPA’s draft risk assessment claims there is no “unreasonable risk” to consumers or children from this chemical, despite its widespread use.

The agency’s conclusion relies heavily on industry-funded research, particularly a 2015 study by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), which receives funding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC). This study was used to support the EPA’s finding that levels of TBBPA in consumer goods and dust are not a risk, even to infants.

Critics argue that this approach is not just biased but also reflects a fundamental failure of scientific integrity. Maria Doa, a former EPA scientist now with the Environmental Defense Fund, notes that “the political people at the EPA changed the science to get the outcome they want.” This is part of a broader pattern of manipulation and downplaying of risks.

The widespread use of TBBPA in consumer goods means that exposure can occur through multiple routes. However, the EPA’s assessment fails to account for these various exposure pathways. Lakendra Barajas, an Earthjustice senior attorney, points out that “they’re ignoring different exposure pathways…and we’re definitely seeing them cite industry sources.”

The implications of this controversy extend far beyond TBBPA itself, raising questions about the EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment under the Trump administration. The agency’s actions are a stark reminder of the dangers of industry capture and the erosion of scientific integrity in regulatory decision-making.

This controversy highlights the need for greater accountability from our regulatory agencies and a renewed commitment to scientific integrity and transparency. As citizens, we must demand that our regulatory agencies prioritize public health concerns over industry interests. The future of environmental policy hangs in the balance, and it is up to us to decide whether to prioritize profits or human well-being.

Ultimately, this controversy is about the kind of society we want to build – one that prioritizes profits over people or one that puts human health and well-being at its core. The choice is ours.