As Happened in Texas, Ignoring EPA Science Will Allow Pollution and Cancer to Fester 

By Jennifer Sass

I’ve spent my scientific career asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to set stronger, lawful public-health protections from toxic chemicals. I do not always agree with EPA’s final decisions, but I respect the scientific process and am always grateful for the agency’s scientists—our public brain trust.

In one of the most dangerous acts against facts and science, the Trump administration announced in March that it will shutter the EPA’s independent research office. This will cut more than 1,000 scientists and technical experts who help the agency determine if, for example, a chemical poses a cancer risk, or a factory is polluting a nearby river. At the same time, Trump’s EPA has installed former oil and chemical industry lobbyists to write the rules to regulate those industries.

There’s a lot of empty talk about making us healthy coming from this administration. Future generations will be even worse off.

What is left unsaid by the Trump EPA is this: eliminating scientists from the EPA is kneecapping environmental safeguards. Every major environmental statute—the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Superfund law governing cleanup requirements—relies on EPA scientists to calculate how hazardous chemicals are, how people and wildlife may be exposed and what health and ecological harms may occur. Questions critical to environmental and community protections are researched, such as: Will exposure to this chemical in my workplace increase my risk of breast cancer? Is the air quality from power plant emissions safe for the neighboring community? What is an acceptable standard for PFAS forever chemicals in our drinking water?

Instead, the Trump team is yet again swinging its chainsaw, this time against independent science to favor polluting industries. Consequent to gutting scientific inquiries by the government and decimating academic scientific research, only one type of scientific research will be available for setting environmental standards: polluter research. And that’s trouble. The public is right to distrust polluter-sponsored science; see “tobacco science” and the myth of safe nuclear waste for starters.

Just ask Texas. The state of Texas’s vigorous defense of ethylene oxide, a well-known carcinogen, provides an ongoing example of the perils to public health from science done by a polluting industry with a financial interest in the outcome and the support of a state government hell-bent on rewriting scientific facts about a cancer-causing chemical.

In 2016, after nearly 10 years of research and analysis, the EPA determined ethylene oxide, a chemical widely used in facilities in Texas and Louisiana to sterilize medical equipment, was linked to cancer—with a 30 times greater risk than the EPA had previously found. EPA’s new risk evaluation included a study of over 300 breast cancer cases in women working with the chemical and adjusted for added risks where children may be exposed.

EPA’s report was finalized after multiple internal reviews, and reviews from other government agencies, with public input including from Texas and the industry on many occasions. There were also two rounds of public review by the agency’s science advisory board.

Rather than accept that finding, the chemical industry and Texas’ regulatory agency issued its own alternative report in 2020 on ethylene oxide. In stark contrast with EPA’s evaluation, the Texas assessment is a contractor product sponsored by the ethylene oxide industry with limited public review. It fails to account for the risk of breast cancer and could allow over 3,000 times more air pollution to be emitted, which would drastically increase illnesses and deaths—including from cancer—for workers and nearby communities.

In an effort to compel EPA to adopt Texas’ cancer-friendly risk estimates nationally, Texas requested a review of its findings by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the nation’s top source of high-quality trusted science and health advice.

In March, the National Academies issued its final report, rebuking the foundations of the Texas analysis, finding it repeatedly deviated from best scientific practices and failed to offer a “credible basis” for its findings, specifically its determination that ethylene oxide was not associated with breast cancer.

Texas’ efforts to rewrite the history of cancer-causing ethylene oxide as a benign, no-big-deal chemical, is just the beginning of the toxic mayhem and misinformation we can expect from the Trump team to support the financial interests of toxic polluters.

Erasing cancer evidence, fudging data, and pretending wild claims are the truth will become the norm, undermining every environmental law and regulation in the nation, and compromising our right to health.

All of us will suffer for it.