States Warn Restricting EPA Science Jeopardizes Public Health

A coalition of 14 state attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, has called on Congress to reject two bills that would restrict the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to use key scientific assessments. The proposed legislation, known as the No IRIS Act, aims to block the EPA from relying on data from its Integrated Risk Information System, a program that evaluates the health risks of toxic chemicals. The attorneys general warn that such measures could undermine efforts to protect communities from harmful pollutants.

At the heart of the dispute is the EPA's Office of Research and Development, which conducts studies on everything from air pollution to emerging contaminants like PFAS. Proposals to dismantle this office, coupled with plans to eliminate over 1,000 scientists, have raised alarms among state officials who rely on federal research to set cleanup standards and regulate environmental hazards. The debate reflects broader tensions over the role of science in shaping public policy.

For many Americans, the stakes are tangible. From contaminated drinking water to hazardous waste sites, the EPA's scientific work informs decisions that affect daily life. Yet, critics of the agency argue that its processes lack transparency and impose undue burdens on businesses, fueling calls for reform. The outcome of this conflict could reshape how the nation addresses environmental health risks.

The Integrated Risk Information System, or IRIS, provides peer-reviewed assessments of chemical toxicity, detailing at what levels substances like benzene or formaldehyde pose risks such as cancer or birth defects. States like California use these assessments to set standards for cleaning up hazardous waste sites and regulating industrial emissions. Without IRIS, state agencies would struggle to access reliable, independent data, potentially leaving communities vulnerable to unchecked exposures.

The Office of Research and Development plays an equally critical role. Its research has guided state responses to crises, from assessing air quality after wildfires to ensuring safe drinking water during natural disasters. For example, California's Department of Toxic Substances Control depends on ORD data to enforce environmental regulations. Losing access to this research could force states to rely on industry-funded studies, which some fear may prioritize profits over public health.

State officials argue that federal science is a cornerstone of their ability to protect residents. Since the EPA's creation in 1970, states have leaned on its expertise to implement laws like the Clean Air Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. The prospect of reduced federal support has prompted concerns about gaps in knowledge and enforcement, particularly in states with limited resources to conduct their own research.

Supporters of the No IRIS Act, including some Republican lawmakers and industry groups, contend that the EPA's scientific processes need reform. They argue that IRIS assessments often overestimate risks, leading to regulations that stifle economic growth without clear benefits. Chemical and fossil fuel industries, in particular, have criticized the program for relying on studies that are not fully transparent or reproducible, calling for greater public access to underlying data.

Proposals to downsize the Office of Research and Development stem from similar concerns. Advocates for restructuring, including those aligned with the Project 2025 policy blueprint, describe the office as bloated and overly focused on regulatory expansion. They assert that streamlining the EPA would reduce bureaucratic inefficiencies and shift more responsibility to states, which they believe are better equipped to address local needs.

These arguments tap into broader skepticism about federal overreach. By emphasizing economic trade-offs and the need for transparency, proponents of reform aim to modernize environmental policy in a way that balances health protections with business interests. Yet, critics counter that these changes could weaken the scientific foundation required to enforce existing laws.

Environmental organizations and public health advocates warn that restricting IRIS and ORD could have far-reaching consequences. Without independent assessments, the EPA might struggle to set safe limits for pollutants, potentially leading to higher rates of diseases linked to chemical exposure. Vulnerable groups, including children and communities near industrial sites, could face the greatest risks.

Historical examples underscore the importance of federal science. In the Flint water crisis, EPA research helped identify lead contamination and guide remediation efforts. Similarly, ORD studies on air quality after the 9/11 attacks informed health protections for first responders. Losing this capacity could leave states and localities scrambling to address complex environmental challenges without adequate data.

Courts have also emphasized the need for science-based regulation. Laws like the Toxic Substances Control Act require the EPA to use the best available science, and judges have struck down rules that fail to meet this standard. If IRIS and ORD are curtailed, legal challenges could delay or weaken environmental protections, creating uncertainty for both regulators and the public.

The debate over EPA science reveals deep divisions over the role of federal agencies in protecting public health. State attorneys general, environmental groups, and industry advocates all agree that science should inform policy, but they differ sharply on how that science is produced and applied. Finding common ground will require addressing concerns about transparency while preserving the independence and rigor of federal research.

As Congress considers the No IRIS Act and related proposals, the voices of everyday Americans, from factory workers to parents near polluted sites, will be crucial. The choices made in Washington will determine whether the nation can continue to rely on robust science to safeguard its air, water, and communities, or whether a new approach will redefine environmental governance for years to come.