Democrats are expressing concern over the impending shutdown of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) office, which once engaged in exposing individuals to hazardous pollutants.
On Friday, the EPA announced a significant restructuring. The Research and Development Bureau (ORD) was designed to aid “reliable decisions to protect human health and ecosystems from environmental pollutants.” Democrats have voiced strong opposition, arguing that this move threatens environmental research and public health. Although the EPA, in its restructuring, plans to redirect some research to other offices, many are skeptical. It seems there’s a proposal for a new office focused on applied science for environmental solutions.
The closure of the ORD might indicate a shift for the EPA, especially considering its controversial past involving dangerous human experiments aimed at validating stricter environmental regulations. I suppose some see it as necessary, while others, well, not so much.
Back in 2014, an ORD study subjected participants, including those with pre-existing health conditions, to dangerous levels of toxic substances during a time when the EPA sought justification for tighter air quality standards. A report from the Inspector General revealed that although the EPA received consent from participants, it didn’t always clearly communicate exposure risks, including serious health concerns.
Specifically, the consent form for a diesel exhaust study lacked information on potential long-term cancer risks. The report noted that, in guiding participants, the EPA downplayed these significant concerns. Some participants ended up being exposed to pollution levels beyond what they initially agreed to, including risky concentrations recommended for avoidance by those with heart issues, the elderly, and children. None died during the studies, but multiple reported adverse effects, prompting hospital visits.
In a press release announcing the reorg, it was stated that under President Trump’s administration, the EPA would reassess its operations to better fulfill its mission of safeguarding public health and the environment.
Despite the administration’s rationale, Democrats criticized the decision, emphasizing that without the ORD, the EPA may struggle to adequately evaluate the effects of environmental pollutants on public health. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island remarked that the ORD had been instrumental in developing measures to protect Americans from harmful pollutants. He expressed concern that undermining scientific inquiry wouldn’t counteract the dangers of toxic chemicals.
Justin Chen, chair of the U.S. Government Employee Federation Council 231, representing EPA staff, claimed the office closures jeopardize the nation’s public health. The EPA has yet to comment on these developments.
