Search

The Trump administration has undertaken an assault on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an agency critical to environmental health. This assault has precedents in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. The early Reagan administration (1981-1983) launched an overt attack on the EPA, combining deregulation with budget and staff cuts, whereas the George W. Bush administration (2001-2008) adopted a subtler approach, undermining science-based policy. The current administration combines both these strategies and operates in a political context more favorable to its designs on the EPA. The Republican Party has shifted right and now controls the executive branch and both chambers of Congress. Wealthy donors, think tanks, and fossil fuel and chemical industries have become more influential in pushing deregulation. Among the public, political polarization has increased, the environment has become a partisan issue, and science and the mainstream media are distrusted. For these reasons, the effects of today's ongoing regulatory delays, rollbacks, and staff cuts may well surpass those of the administrations of Reagan and Bush, whose impacts on environmental health were considerable.

Concern about the toxicity and exposure of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) is growing among scientists, regulators, and residents of contaminated communities. In 2016, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed three food contact substances (FCSs) containing perfluorinated chemicals from the list of approved FCSs due to concerns regarding chemical safety. To investigate the significance and limitations of the FDA's regulatory action for environmental health research, advocacy, and regulation, we conducted a media analysis and qualitative interviews with a range of involved stakeholders. We find that the FDA's regulatory action represents a potential shift from chemical-by-chemical regulation toward class-based regulation, where groups of chemicals can be identified as sharing properties and risks, and are thus evaluated and regulated together. The FDA decision sets an important precedent of using a petition process to delist chemicals based on a safety standard. However, the narrow reach of this action also highlights the need for more comprehensive, precautionary chemical regulation capable of thoroughly evaluating classes of chemicals, and raises important questions about how classes of chemicals are delimited in environmental health science and regulation.

In the absence of comprehensive environmental regulation, under what conditions can social movement pressure on the private sector generate substantive change? We explore this question in relation to per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals that are widely used in consumer products and industrial processes yet remain largely understudied and weakly regulated. This paper focuses on the strengths and limitations of one high-profile shame campaign by Greenpeace that has called for clothing and outdoor brands to eliminate PFAS from their products. We find that while the campaign appears to have spurred widespread awareness of PFAS in the apparel industry, corporate action remains fragmented and leaves broader environmental and social justice concerns unaddressed. We highlight the urgent need for comprehensive federal regulation for toxic chemicals, increased funding for green chemistry, and collaborative governance of global production networks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]