Scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency’s chemical safety office told CNN they have been asked to revisit risk assessments in ways they say could narrow exposure scenarios and reduce findings of potential harm.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
Scientists inside the Environmental Protection Agency say chemical safety reviews are receiving increased political scrutiny, with some employees alleging they have been pressured to revise assessments in ways that could make chemicals used in everyday products appear less risky.
The concerns involve the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, the division responsible for reviewing industrial chemicals and pesticides and assessing possible risks to human health and the environment. The office evaluates substances used in products including household cleaners, cosmetics and agricultural insecticides.
According to a CNN report, current and former employees said staff members have been asked to reconsider exposure scenarios in chemical reviews, sometimes by examining narrower or more limited assumptions.
“What we’ve been told is: ‘Let’s look at alternative scenarios,’” one employee in the EPA office told CNN.
The employee said supervisors sometimes searched for more limited exposure examples that could support a finding that a chemical is safe.
“If putting two hands in a chemical shows risk, they’ll ask, ‘What if it’s one hand? What if it’s one finger?’” the person said.
“We are considering scenarios we don’t have any basis for,” the employee added.
The EPA’s chemical safety office plays a key role in determining how chemicals and pesticides are approved, regulated or restricted. Its work can affect consumer goods, agricultural products, industrial uses and environmental protections.
A scientist who recently left the office told CNN that the level of political review has expanded into routine scientific decisions.
The scientist said every decision “is going to the political level, down to the smallest detail.”
“That is abnormal,” the scientist said.
The former EPA scientist said previous administrations generally showed more deference to staff scientists when they relied on established scientific methods.
“There was a level of respect and trust that the scientists were relying on the best science,” the scientist said.
The former employee said the current process requires subject-matter experts to justify their scientific approaches to political appointees and leaves little room for pushback when top officials ask them to reconsider.
“Subject-matter experts having to explain to political appointees why they chose a particular science approach, being scrutinized for what they did, and if asked to think about it differently, there’s little you can do to push back if you’re meeting with the top person,” the scientist said.
Another career EPA employee told CNN that staff members are expected to comply with instructions from supervisors.
“You have to follow instructions. Otherwise, that’s insubordination,” the employee said.
The EPA defended its handling of chemical reviews and said its approach is tied to President Donald Trump’s order on scientific standards.
“EPA is implementing the President’s Executive Order on Restoring Gold Standard Science across its risk evaluations,” the agency said in an email to CNN.
The agency said that approach means relying on exposure scenarios it considers realistic rather than automatically using worst-case assumptions.
“In practice, that means using realistic exposure scenarios rather than defaulting to compounded worst-case assumptions, being transparent about the assumptions and uncertainties in every analysis, and ensuring conclusions are testable and reproducible,” the EPA said.
The agency also said its chemical safety work remains focused on public health.
The EPA said its “top priority is protecting the health of all Americans, and every chemical safety decision the agency makes is grounded in gold-standard science: peer-reviewed literature, validated test methods, real-world monitoring data, and fit-for-purpose exposure and fate modeling.”
The dispute reflects a broader disagreement over how chemical risks should be evaluated. Employees quoted by CNN said some of the new scrutiny could weaken assessments by relying on scenarios they believe are too narrow or unsupported. The EPA said it is working to ensure reviews are realistic, transparent and scientifically reproducible.
The outcome of those reviews can shape federal decisions on chemicals used in common consumer and commercial products, making the internal debate significant for public health policy, industry regulation and environmental oversight.
Original article
Comments