Category: Economy
Byline: The Republic Standard News Staff
Tags: Economy, Lee Zeldin, EPA, National Security
What Is at Stake
A flame retardant present in roughly 70 percent of electronics worldwide — and found in children’s pajamas, strollers, carpeting, and small kitchen appliances — is at the center of a growing dispute over whether the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin is allowing industrial influence to shape public health conclusions. The chemical, tetrabromobisphenol A, commonly known as TBBPA, accumulates in household dust and has been linked by independent researchers to cancer, hormone disruption, and developmental harm in children. Whether American families can trust the federal assessment of its safety is now an open question.
What Happened
The EPA released a draft risk assessment concluding that TBBPA poses no carcinogenic threat at the exposure levels experienced by the general American public, including children, and recommended no restrictions on its continued use in consumer goods. That conclusion puts the agency sharply at odds with the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which classifies TBBPA as a probable human carcinogen, and with European regulatory bodies that have reached similar findings.
Critics inside and outside the scientific community argue the EPA’s assessment contains a factual error significant enough to call the entire document into question. The agency’s draft stated that TBBPA is “unlikely to be used in fabrics and textiles” — citing the American Chemistry Council, an industry lobbying organization, as its source, as first reported by the The Guardian. A separate EPA assessment, however, found TBBPA still in active use across 96 types of children’s clothing. State records from Washington confirm the chemical’s presence in children’s products including pajamas and strollers.
The EPA’s draft also leaned heavily on a 2015 study produced by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, known as Tera, an organization that has received industry funding and has a documented history of working to challenge regulations governing toxic chemicals.
Maria Doa, a former EPA scientist now affiliated with the Environmental Defense Fund, told The Guardian: “The political people at the EPA changed the science to get the outcome they want. This isn’t the first time.” Arlene Blum, director of the Green Science Policy Institute, was equally direct: “Small molecule TBBPA should be restricted. It can get into humans and contribute to cancer and behavioral harm.”
By the Numbers
552 million pounds — the volume of TBBPA produced globally in 2016 alone, making it one of the most heavily manufactured flame retardants in the world.
70 percent — the estimated share of electronics worldwide that contain TBBPA, including computers, televisions, phones, microwaves, and toasters.
96 — the number of children’s clothing types found to contain TBBPA in a separate EPA assessment, directly contradicting the agency’s own draft risk evaluation.
February 18, 2025 — the date of the EPA announcement tied to the risk assessment process, placing this dispute early in the Zeldin-led agency’s tenure.
The Broader Picture
This controversy arrives at a moment when the federal regulatory apparatus is under scrutiny from multiple directions. Conservatives have long pushed back against EPA overreach and the agency’s tendency to regulate on the basis of speculative risk models rather than hard science. But the allegation here runs in a different direction: that industry-friendly conclusions are being laundered through official assessments, potentially leaving American families — and specifically children — exposed to a chemical that independent international bodies consider dangerous.
TBBPA does not stay put. It releases easily from consumer goods into household dust, where children absorb it through contact and inhalation. Independent research has tied it to hormone disruption, immune system toxicity, and harm to the reproductive and nervous systems during development. The European regulatory posture on the chemical is considerably more cautious than what the current EPA draft recommends.
The credibility of federal chemical risk assessments matters enormously to American manufacturers, consumers, and trading partners. If the EPA is relying on industry-sourced claims that contradict its own internal data — as the textiles discrepancy strongly suggests — the integrity of the entire review process is compromised. The United States already faces structural vulnerabilities in its industrial and economic independence; a regulatory framework that prioritizes short-term chemical industry convenience over long-term public health does nothing to strengthen the country’s foundation.
The draft risk assessment remains open for review. Whether the agency corrects the textiles error and revisits its sourcing before the final rule is issued will serve as a concrete test of whether sound science or industry preference is driving decisions at EPA under the current administration.