EPA Restructuring Poses Risk to Chemical Health Risk Assessment Program

In a significant organizational shift, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced plans to dismantle its primary scientific research division. Reports indicate that scientists from the 1,500-member Office of Research and Development are being instructed to apply for approximately 500 new positions that will be distributed across various agency sectors, with further reductions expected in the near future.

This reorganization jeopardizes the future of a vital program within the office known as the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). This program plays a crucial role in conducting independent research on chemical health risks, aiding other divisions of the EPA in formulating regulations for potentially hazardous substances. Following the announcement of the restructuring, the program's leadership has already stepped down.

Experts express concern that this reorganization could dismantle the IRIS program, which has faced longstanding opposition from the chemical industry and certain political factions. According to Thomas Burke, a notable figure in risk science and policy, this restructuring appears to favor the interests of polluters.

In a recent communication, an EPA spokesperson described the May 2 announcement as part of a broader initiative to overhaul the agency. They assured that the reorganization process is proceeding swiftly and that further details will be shared as they become available.

Established in the mid-1980s, the IRIS program was intended to assess the health implications of chemicals by compiling global research to evaluate potential hazards associated with both new and existing substances. Unlike other EPA offices, IRIS does not have regulatory duties; its primary function is to provide scientific evidence to inform potential regulations, ensuring its assessments remain insulated from external pressures.

The database maintained by IRIS includes evaluations of over 570 chemicals and their health effects, serving as a foundational resource not only for federal policy but also for state and international regulatory frameworks. Experts regard this database as a benchmark for health assessments concerning chemical contaminants.

However, the IRIS program has struggled with an overwhelming workload, needing to evaluate more than 80,000 registered chemicals in the U.S., compounded by the continual introduction of new substances. Some chemicals have long been on the radar, while others, such as persistent environmental pollutants known as 'forever chemicals,' have gained recent attention due to their widespread presence.

Industry opposition has further complicated IRIS's efforts, as chemicals deemed harmful could impact various sectors reliant on those substances. The IRIS assessments, which can label certain chemicals as carcinogenic, lead to potential regulatory challenges for industries that utilize them. Chemical companies have historically attempted to undermine IRIS findings through alternative research and lobbying efforts aimed at delaying assessments.

During the Trump administration, attempts were made to diminish the independence of the IRIS program, including proposals to consolidate it with other EPA divisions. Despite these challenges, the program received funding support from Congress, allowing it to maintain its structure. However, with the current administration's efforts to reshape the agency, IRIS is once again facing significant threats.

Recent legislative proposals, including the No IRIS Act, have explicitly targeted the program, with industry advocates arguing that IRIS assessments hinder access to essential chemical materials and compromise national interests.

Should IRIS be dissolved, experts predict that research on toxic substances will continue but in a fragmented manner, with various offices conducting isolated assessments. This could lead to inconsistencies in findings, as different offices may arrive at differing conclusions regarding the same chemical.

The ongoing reorganization, combined with budget cuts and a reduced workforce, is expected to stymie regulatory efforts concerning chemical safety. The emphasis on addressing a backlog of industrial chemicals and pesticides will shift focus away from broader health assessments, potentially slowing progress in environmental protections.