"Sound Science" and dropping IRIS raise serious health risks

Dear Journalist,

The introduction of the Sound Science Act to Increase Transparency, Strengthen Science for Regulated Chemicals by U.S. Sen. Pete Ricketts (R-NE) and recent news of EPA dropping its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), raise very serious contradictions for protecting our health from toxic exposures. As you cover the efforts by the chemical industry and Republican allies to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, here is some additional background.

Sound science in name, not substance

Introduced by Sen. Ricketts, this bill dismisses and undermines science and would take away EPA’s authority to meaningfully review and assess chemicals by tying its hands. It significantly limits scientific information that EPA can consider, allowing the Trump administration’s EPA to lowball the risks posed by toxic chemicals in our everyday lives like furniture, cleaning supplies and electronics. It weakens the Toxic Substances Control Act’s “best available science” standard by diluting it with risk management considerations.

The bill also requires EPA to give industry a seat at the table when they consider worker protection standards.  This bill will require the agency to determine worker protections based on outdated and inadequate standards with unprecedented conflicts of interest with the chemicals industry partially regulating themselves.

The bill significantly constrains EPA in considering aggregate exposures, or the sum of the exposures to a chemical that workers, fenceline communities and pregnant women and children face. This bill dismisses decades of evidence that people are exposed to chemicals from multiple sources. EPA’s scientific advisory committee has consistently advised EPA to consider aggregate exposures to a chemical. This bill would make it harder for EPA to do just that.

Tying EPA’s hands and minimizing the sum of people’s exposure to toxics is the opposite of sound science. Like the House Republican proposal to weaken the Toxics Substances Control Act, this bill attacks the science EPA uses, particularly in addressing chemicals that have long been on the market with well-documented health and environmental risks. 

EPA’s reckless budget defunds science

The White House proposed a $4.6-billion cut to EPA (a 52% decrease from its FY26 enacted budget) that would fully eliminate EPA’s Office of Research and Development that has already been shuffling scientists to other offices across the administration to weaken enforcement of safeguards and standards. 

Recent data shows nearly a 20% reduction in peer reviewed studies coming out of EPA, citing staffing cuts and decreased budgets. This means less science-based protections for families from the toxic pollution in our air, water and everyday products.

Adding to its reckless agenda, the White House recently fired all 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB), the group that advises the National Science Foundation (NSF). The White House has also proposed a 50% budget cut to NSF, straining the ability to conduct key research around AI, quantum computing, physical science and environmental studies across the board. 

Health assessments underpin the ability to better address risks

EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program is charged with the development of rigorous, science-based human health assessments to identify and characterize the toxicity of environmental contaminants. It provides both cancer and non-cancer risk information that informs EPA and state regulatory standards. It is also used by tribal agencies and international organizations. 

The leaked internal memorandum directs the dismantling of IRIS (similarly to actions on ORD) by reassigning most of the scientists in the program to other parts of the agency. By calling to eliminate EPA’s barrier between science and policy, EPA wants to use “science policy judgements based on [the program office’s] regulatory program” rather than relying on scientific evidence. 

This creates inefficiency by design, making it even more difficult to enact health protections given the significant loss of expertise and experience at EPA and the siloing of other staff into the different program offices. EPA’s unscientific toxicity reassessment of formaldehyde at the end of 2025 was a preview of this memo and another proof point of the Trump administration's commitment to weakening protections from toxic chemicals and pollution despite known risks to chronic disease, infertility, cancer and premature death.  

Industry backing is creating a dangerous surround sound 

Industry has consistently been lobbying to re-open the Toxic Substances Control Act to dismantle many bipartisan standards from the 2016 reform. Using the expiration of the fee authority as a trojan horse to weaken the law, the chemical lobby is shopping for additional health-harming provisions tied to auto manufacturing, fragrances and more.

Industry influence on Congress to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act and EPA to “get out of the way” are efforts in a whole-of-government approach to prioritize special interests over people’s health and devalue human life.

Several leaders of the EPA’s Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), which is tasked with keeping harmful chemicals out of everything from plastic toys to cleaning products, come from groups that have pushed to weaken chemical safety rules. Doug Troutman, former lobbyist for the American Cleaning Institute, is the current assistant administrator for toxic substances; Nancy Beck, former American Chemistry Council executive, is EPA’s current principal deputy assistant administrator for OCSPP; and Lynn Dekleva, former American Chemistry Council director, is now deputy assistant administrator at EPA OCSPP. These appointments are a part of a larger pattern within the Trump administration of placing people with deep ties to major polluters in key decision-making roles at government agencies.

Exposure to toxics have huge health risks

People are often exposed to multiple chemicals—often from multiple sources—that can cause the same health problems. This is especially true in communities where polluting facilities are clustered together.  Our Chemical Exposure Action Map shows that communities across the country are being exposed to multiple toxic chemicals and their associated health risks in three categories: cancer, developmental harm and asthma.

As you’re crafting stories on the effort to weaken our bedrock chemical safety law, EPA’s budget or other events, use our tool to see where facilities are polluting these toxic chemicals into our air, water and land and how it’s putting people’s health at risk.

I’d be happy to put you in contact with our chemicals policy expert Maria Doa; Joanna Slaney, our federal advocacy and political affairs lead; and leaders from impacted communities. Please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Cecile G. Brown, Communications Director
Healthy Communities
(202) 271-6534
cebrown@edf.org