From coronavirus to chemicals—when
the government ignores science, Americans die
The disconnect between
science and government action is on full daily display during this COVID-19
pandemic—and with deadly consequences. But the government's actions of limiting the impact of
science on policy is not new.
Our response to the
COVID-19 pandemic was delayed by the
Trump Administration despite urgent calls for action by public health
authorities. These mixed messages have
set the stage for a much more deadly outcome to this pandemic than was
necessary.
But the government is
limiting the role of science in other public health decisions, and we will pay
the price.
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has published in the Federal Register a supplement to a
proposed rule that defines
the science it will use to protect public health—and the science it will
ignore.
The supplement
represents "clarifications, modifications and additions" to a
proposed rule cynically entitled "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory
Science."
Nowhere does the EPA
provide a rational explanation of the problem they are trying to solve with
this action.
The Agency writes that the "EPA should ensure that the data underlying [actions] are publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation." This sounds rational but it will eliminate the use of findings published in high quality, peer-reviewed journals, including epidemiological studies.
Imagine ignoring the
data showing that the coronavirus is more deadly in older patients, or that
people with underlying high blood pressure are more vulnerable to the disease.
Yet, this is exactly what EPA is proposing to do in the domain of chemical
safety decisions.
Also, the EPA cannot
claim that they have been misled by independent academic findings resulting in
"over-regulation" of chemicals.
In fact, a comprehensive
two volume work published by the European Environment Agency in Copenhagen entitled
"Late Lessons From Early Warnings"
documents the adverse health and environmental impacts of government inaction.
In this analysis, they also identify only four times that a chemical might have
been "over-regulated." And this out of the 140,000 chemicals in commerce worldwide.
Rather, the report is
full of hazards where society acted too late—examples include lead, mercury,
PCBs, asbestos and chlorofluorocarbons and many more—which has led to thousands
of cases of cancers and other illnesses.
The government use of
science to justify inaction
The Trump
Administration's EPA is using "science" to justify inaction—by being
very selective in the science they can consider, the EPA can justify inaction
on important environmental issues.
A good example is the
EPA's reversal in banning the pesticide chlorpyrifos. Ample scientific evidence shows that
chlorpyrifos can harm children's brains.
But the EPA chose
inaction in regulating this chemical, claiming that the data were not
sufficient. The current proposed rule will provide them with a formal
ability—if not requirement—to ignore quality science by saying that the data do
not conform to "transparency" rules.
The consequences of
government inaction
The current coronavirus
epidemic provides a real-time example of the cost of government inaction. As
hospitals become overrun with critical patients, they lack the supplies they
need both to protect healthcare workers and treat their patients.
While the consequences
of government inaction play out in the context of the coronavirus pandemic,
they play out more quietly in the context of chemical regulation. Each baby
born in the U.S. has more than 100 industrial chemicals in
their blood.
We know for certain that
some of these are harmful, including lead, mercury, polyhalogenated biphenyls,
brominated flame retardants, and many more. And most
chemicals found in babies' blood have not been evaluated for safety.
This contamination
contributes to the high prevalence of chronic diseases in the U.S., including a
remarkable 18 percent of children with diagnosed neurobehavioral problems including autism and
ADHD, epidemic obesity and metabolic syndrome, reproductive disorders and developmental
disorders.
The current crisis is
dominating the news cycle, as well it should. But my hope is that one of the
lessons we learn is that the government needs to prioritize human health in the
short term and the long term.
Thomas Zoeller is
Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and
Visiting Professor at Örebro University, Örebro, Sweden. His views do not
necessarily represent those of Environmental Health News, The Daily Climate or
publisher, Environmental Health Sciences.
