Key facts
- Public health advocates accuse the EPA of manipulating safety data for the flame retardant TBBPA.
- TBBPA is linked to hormone disruption, brain damage, and developmental harms.
- The EPA's draft risk assessment concluded TBBPA is not carcinogenic at estimated exposure levels.
- Critics allege the EPA relies heavily on industry-funded science and downplays exposure risks.
- A Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals, stacked with industry-aligned scientists, is reviewing the EPA's assessment.
Public health advocates have accused the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of manipulating safety data concerning TBBPA, a highly toxic flame retardant used widely across the U.S. economy. These advocates allege that the agency, under the Trump administration, is collaborating with industry to downplay the risks associated with the chemical, which has been detected in household dust and consumer goods at levels that independent research suggests could endanger the public, particularly young children.
While European agencies and international cancer organizations classify TBBPA as a probable carcinogen, the EPA's new draft risk assessment reportedly uses an unusual approach to conclude it is not carcinogenic at the exposure levels it estimates for the U.S. public and children. Critics contend that the agency is heavily relying on industry-provided science, which they claim underestimates the chemical's toxicity and the actual levels of daily exposure. The EPA's assessment suggested no restrictions were needed for TBBPA in consumer goods, stating there was no "unreasonable risk" to consumers or children.
Maria Doa, a former EPA scientist now with the Environmental Defense Fund, stated that "political people at the EPA changed the science to get the outcome they want," a pattern she claims has been consistent under the Trump administration. TBBPA, a brominated flame retardant, is incorporated into electronics, textiles, furniture, and numerous other products. It has been linked to hormone disruption, brain damage, immune system toxicity, and developmental harms in children.
Earthjustice, a non-profit, noted in its comments on the risk assessment that the EPA falsely claimed TBBPA is no longer widely used in textiles, citing an industry group, the American Chemistry Council (ACC), without providing supporting evidence. This contradicts other EPA findings and state records indicating its continued use in children's clothing and other products. Earthjustice also detailed how the EPA underestimated risks by ignoring various exposure pathways, including those from environmental contamination, recycled plastics, and food.
The EPA's assessment leaned heavily on industry science, including a study from Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), a group that receives some industry funding. Doa pointed out that Tera's study was used to support the EPA's finding that TBBPA levels in consumer goods and dust pose no risk, even to infants. The agency also relied on ACC research regarding TBBPA's presence in dust, which was conducted over a limited 30-day period, a duration even the EPA acknowledged was insufficient. The EPA's risk assessment characterized fears about toxicity to children as based on "overly protective if not unrealistic assumptions."
Adding to concerns, a committee tasked with ensuring the EPA uses sound science has been populated with industry-aligned scientists appointed by the Trump administration, including the founder of Tera, Michael Dourson, whose firm's research is being used by the EPA. This raises conflict of interest questions, as Dourson's firm's work is effectively being reviewed by his own committee. Despite these appointments, the committee initially indicated that the EPA might have underestimated risks in some instances. Penny Fenner-Crisp, a former EPA water division manager, criticized the risk assessment for procedural issues and a potentially rushed process that could lead to legal challenges, emphasizing the need for decisions to be based on credible scientific evidence.