The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) decision to sideline its independent chemical referee, the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), is a cause for concern. This move, driven by the Trump administration, has far-reaching implications for public health and the regulation of hazardous chemicals. The IRIS program, which has been a cornerstone of chemical safety assessment for decades, is being dismantled, and its role shifted to policy offices. This change opens the door to political pressure and potential manipulation of scientific findings, which could have dire consequences for public health.
The IRIS program has been a trusted source of information on chemical hazards, providing comprehensive and transparent assessments that have been used across EPA programs and internationally. Its scientists, acting as neutral referees, have assessed whether chemicals cause harm and weighed the risks associated with exposure. These assessments have been rigorously reviewed by independent external peer reviewers, ensuring their scientific integrity. The program has also been open to public and industry input, with opportunities for comment on drafts before finalization.
What makes the IRIS program unique is its focus on evidence-based decision-making. It did not estimate real-world exposures or make regulatory choices, but rather provided the scientific foundation for policy decisions. This separation of scientific evaluation from regulatory consequences has been crucial in maintaining the credibility and reliability of the EPA's actions. When agencies fail to clearly explain how evidence supports their decisions, courts can block those decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act or other laws, such as the Clean Air Act.
The dismantling of IRIS as an independent program means that chemical hazard assessments will be overseen by regulatory offices that also consider economic impacts, legal risk, and policy priorities. This shift risks undermining the foundation of evidence-based decision-making, as it becomes harder to maintain a clear separation between evaluating evidence and weighing its regulatory consequences. The result can be prolonged litigation and delays in developing or implementing regulations, with real consequences for public health.
The impact of this change is particularly concerning in communities where industries have a significant presence. Industries have a history of challenging scientific findings that show their products can cause harm, from tobacco smoke to particulate air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels. When public health is at stake, independent referees are essential to ensure that facts are determined by evidence, not by the industries that would benefit. The loss of this independent scientific review process could lead to a situation where political pressure and economic interests overshadow scientific evidence, potentially endangering public health.
