Scientific Battle Between EPA and ACC Enters New Phase Under Trump
The American Chemistry Council refuted a New York Times article alleging the trade group has systematically undermined formaldehyde regulation efforts.
The Feb. 26 article stated ACC doggedly pursued evidence that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s research was faulty and biased. The Times also focused on the Trump administration’s appointment of former ACC lobbyist Lynn Dekleva to the role of deputy assistant administrator for new chemicals, a position she held during the first Trump administration.
According to the Times, while at ACC, Dekleva relentlessly challenged federal officials for evidence of bias in their formaldehyde assessments. These efforts included Freedom of Information Act requests to review staff emails and the submission of industry-funded research papers that downplayed formaldehyde risks.
ACC characterized the Times report as “a misleading account of the state of the science behind formaldehyde.”
“The New York Times fails to mention the significant concerns and recommendations the EPA’s own Human Studies Review Board (HSRB) and Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals have raised about the IRIS and TSCA evaluations of formaldehyde,” said Allison Edwards, ACC’s director of product communications, in a Feb. 27 email to Chemical Processing.
ACC contends that past HSRB and SACC reports confirm EPA is not using the “best available science,” as required by the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Dueling Scientific Interpretations Fuel Regulatory Battle
HSRB advises EPA and provides recommendations to the agency on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of human-subjects research. SACC issues independent scientific advice and recommendations to EPA on the scientific and technical aspects of risk assessments, methodologies and pollution prevention measures and approaches for chemicals regulated by TSCA.
HSRB found that four studies EPA reviewed to determine irritation risks for formaldehyde “appear to be appropriate for use,” while noting some limitations to consider.
SACC stated that "the draft documents are comprehensive and rely on the best available science,” while offering five specific areas for improvement. ACC has said that both studies expose critical deficiencies, including EPA’s overreliance on observational studies over the use of controlled chambers, which according to HSRB, are more scientifically sound than observational studies.
Among the dozens of recommendations from the two reports were suggestions that EPA should adopt a more coordinated approach to its research with other review panels, such as SACC and the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. Additionally, the reports recommended that sensory irritation shouldn't be considered an adverse effect without a rationale explaining why it's an appropriate consideration for exposure limits. ACC frequently references Haber’s Rule, which takes into account product of concentration of the chemical and duration of exposure.
When reviewing EPA’s finding that Haber’s Rule applies to formaldehyde, HSRB determined based on four chamber studies that duration shouldn’t factor in to exposure criteria.
While SACC co-chair George Cobb would not comment directly on SACC’s review of the formaldehyde risk evaluation, he pointed to several excerpts within the peer review indicating ACC's characterization of a deeply flawed EPA assessment has been overstated. Cobb highlighted this excerpt from the report:
“The Committee commended the EPA for undertaking a complex and essential evaluation that has potential to improve human and environmental health. The Committee acknowledged that timelines, information complexities, concerns from numerous stakeholders, and budgetary constraints further complicate the implementation of this, and other Risk Evaluations being conducted by the EPA. Overall, the draft documents are comprehensive and rely on the best available science.”
In his email to Chemical Processing, Cobb added the list of five SACC suggested areas of improvement in EPA’s evaluation of formaldehyde, including better harmonization of assessments and data from various sources and the need for more robust air-quality data evaluations.
Dekleva’s Impact
As the Times article noted, while at ACC, Dekleva called for investigations of federal officials for potential bias. Despite complaints by a former EPA scientist, who described ACC’s tactics as going “beyond the pale,” the industry group said the past Freedom of Information Act requests revealed a pattern of bias, process irregularities and conflicts of interest.
ACC also submitted dozens of research papers funded by the chemical industry that minimized the risks of formaldehyde, according to the Times report.
ACC claims the papers include “state-of-the-art scientific data” from more than 40 peer-reviewed studies. The back and forth highlights a long-standing battle between ACC and regulators over what constitutes good science.
ACC has contended that EPA under President Biden enacted policies that were not based on sound science, specifically calling out the formaldehyde risk evaluation process.
In December, EPA issued a final risk determination under the Toxic Substances Control Act and determined that formaldehyde presents an unreasonable risk of injury to human health under its conditions of use because of acute inhalation and dermal exposures.
On Feb. 19, ACC commended the introduction of the No Industrial Restrictions In Secret Act, a name that plays on the EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program.
Republican Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana and Rep. Glenn Grothman, a Wisconsin Republican, first announced the bill in 2024 with the goal of restricting EPA from relying on assessments generated by its IRIS program.
Moving forward, EPA's leadership under Lee Zeldin is expected to push forward President Trump's agenda to deregulate industry by rolling back many environmental initiatives.
Dekleva, along with Nancy Beck, a former ACC director, who is now in EPA's chemical safety and pollution prevention office, is anticipated to support an approach that leads to more favorable regulatory outcomes for the chemical industry.
Dekleva did not respond directly to Chemical Processing requests for comment on the NYT article. However, EPA’s press office responded with an email stating:
“Just because the New York Times espouses their ideological agenda as ‘news,’ in no way, shape or form is an accurate reflection of truth or reality. Every EPA political appointee works with the career employees in the EPA Ethics Office to ensure all applicable ethics obligations are addressed. Under President Trump, EPA is committed to our core mission of protecting human health and the environment across all our program offices and regions.”
