The EPA Will Likely Gut Team That Studies Health Risks From Chemicals
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is reportedly considering a plan to drastically reduce the number of scientists working on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, which assesses the health risks posed by toxic chemicals.
The potential move has raised concerns among environmental and public health advocates, who fear that it could undermine the agency’s ability to accurately assess the dangers of various chemicals and prioritize which ones should be regulated.
Under the proposed plan, the EPA would reportedly cut the staff working on the IRIS program by as much as 45%, significantly reducing the program’s capacity to conduct thorough assessments of chemicals’ health risks.
The IRIS program plays a critical role in informing the EPA’s decisions on regulations and setting guidelines for safe exposure levels to chemicals in air, water, and soil.
Opponents of the plan argue that reducing the number of scientists working on the IRIS program would not only compromise the agency’s ability to protect public health but also undermine the scientific integrity of the EPA’s regulatory process.
Those in favor of the plan argue that it would streamline the agency’s operations and make it more efficient by focusing on its core responsibilities. They believe that the current staffing levels are excessive and that the program could operate effectively with fewer scientists.
However, critics contend that cutting the IRIS program would also hinder the EPA’s ability to respond to emerging health risks, such as new chemicals or environmental contaminants that pose potential dangers to human health.
As the debate over the future of the IRIS program continues, many are closely watching to see how the EPA’s decision will impact its ability to protect public health and uphold its mission to safeguard the environment.
In conclusion, the potential gutting of the team that studies health risks from chemicals at the EPA raises serious questions about the agency’s commitment to protecting public health and the environment, as well as its ability to make evidence-based regulatory decisions.
