Brazen Alignment with Industry: Disastrous Approach of Past Leaders
The Make America Healthy Again commission report, published by the previous administrative entity in May, revealed an alarming leniency of the past leadership towards corporate interests at the expense of public health. This brazen alignment with the industry rather than striking a balance for the welfare of the nation demonstrates the flawed perspective of our previous leaders. The report spelled out their stance on the regulation of chemicals, especially pesticides, which they audaciously accredited to the industry as a ‘pernicious influence’. The approach was received with considerable exasperation, particularly concerning the pesticides’ effect on children’s health.
Jean-Marie Kauth, a professor at Benedictine University and part of the EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, felt an initial surge of optimism on reading the report. Her interest stemmed from a personal tragedy – the loss of her eight-year-old daughter to leukemia, which Kauth attributed to exposure from a harmful insecticide Chlorpyrifos. However, this hope was quickly dampened by the lack of clarity from the previous administration on how they planned to safeguard the health of younger generations in light of the rollback of regulations on chemicals.
The ineffectual ban on Chlorpyrifos in 2021, which was unfortunately reversed by a court order in 2023, highlights the futility attached to the previous administration’s decision-making capabilities. Their inability to sustain this ban reveals a lack of commitment to public health despite their performative stand in the Make America Healthy Again report.
In their subsequent strategy report, released recently with input from multiple agencies, the previous leadership further showcases dissonance in their decisions and intentions. The disapproval from several critics over the report underlines the problem – how can an administration that is notoriously corporate-friendly effectively protect public health?
A leading flaw in the final strategy report is, as Kauth expresses, clear capitulation to pesticide corporations. Rather than taking a firm stance against these harmful substances, the report merely hints on the potential health perils associated with widespread pesticides such as glyphosate and atrazine. This underwhelming response begs the question of where the administration’s true loyalties lie.
Despite worldwide authorities, including the former EPA, dubbing these pesticides safe, numerous studies relate these chemicals to severe health complications, including various forms of cancer. It is disconcerting to observe the previous leadership ignore substantial research for the sake of industry appeasement.
What’s more, the recent strategy report, acting in stark contrast to the May publication, noticeably rescinds from explicitly addressing the pesticide issue. The omission of earlier named pesticides, glyphosate and atrazine, coupled with sketchy references to actions on pesticides, delineates a marked backpedaling on their initial position.
Declaring vague promises of informing public about robust review procedures for EPA’s pesticide regulation, the previous leadership only adds insult to already mounting injury. Given the established correlation between exposure to pesticides and a plethora of health issues in children, increasing public awareness hardly qualifies as a sufficient approach.
Further vexing is the past administration’s plan to ‘reform’ the approval process for both chemical and biological pesticides, as mentioned under a section coined Process Efficiencies and Deregulation. This strategy, alarmingly indicating a bias towards ease of industry operation rather than strict regulatory measures, misses the mark on the urgent need for pesticide control.
Another damning revelation is the downsizing of the EPA. With the departure of around 3,000 employees, coupled with the planned disbanding of the Office of Research and Development, the previous leadership has undeniably weakened the capacity of the agency.
The reorganization, initiated in July, has undoubtedly disturbed the agency’s functioning. It’s no surprise then, that the agency’s handling of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly referred to as ‘forever chemicals’, appears to be in disarray.
These chemicals, known to resist degradation in the environment, have been linked with a series of health risks. A report issued recently awkwardly mentions that the EPA and National Institutes of Health will work at helping the CDC update health risk recommendations regarding PFAS in water. With the previous administration’s lukewarm commitment to public health, how that assistance will play out remains largely unsure.
The previous leadership had set limits on six PFAS chemicals in drinking water in 2024, but with the announced restructuring, the efficacy of such rulings is questionable. Employees working on PFAS issues report struggles in carrying out their responsibilities, notably in procurement of supplies, hiring technical staff, and executing their work. This hints at a grim picture painted by the previous administration’s actions and strategies, underscoring the significant pressing issues that the new leadership must resolve.