Public health advocates claim the Environmental Protection Agency is manipulating safety data concerning a highly toxic flame retardant that is pervasive throughout the U.S. economy.
The chemical, TBBPA, has been detected in household dust and consumer products at concentrations that independent studies indicate could pose a risk to the general population, particularly young children.
The agency is weighing restrictions on the flame retardant, with advocates arguing that this dispute exemplifies the Trump administration’s collaboration with industry to minimize the hazards of a highly toxic yet lucrative chemical.
Although European regulators and international cancer agencies have classified TBBPA as a probable carcinogen, the EPA’s new draft risk assessment employs what public health organizations describe as an unconventional methodology to determine that the chemical does not cause cancer at the exposure levels it claims the U.S. public and children experience.
Environmental organizations charge that the agency heavily leans on industry-generated research that downplays the chemical’s toxicity and the daily exposure levels of the public. Because TBBPA is ubiquitous, individuals can be exposed through multiple pathways, yet the EPA fails to account for many of these routes.
If adopted, the risk assessment will inform regulations for the flame retardant. Despite the chemical’s pervasive use, the agency’s assessment asserts there is no “unreasonable risk” to consumers or children and recommends that no restrictions on TBBPA’s application to consumer goods are necessary.
“The political officials at the EPA altered the scientific data to achieve the desired result,” said Maria Doa, a former EPA scientist now affiliated with the Environmental Defense Fund. “This is not an isolated incident; it has been a consistent pattern under the Trump administration.”
TBBPA, a brominated flame retardant, is applied to printed circuit boards and casings of electronic devices such as computers, smartphones, microwaves, toasters, televisions, and other small appliances. It also appears in products ranging from toothbrushes and children’s clothing to carpeting, leather goods, automobiles, aircraft, furniture, and a wide array of textiles and plastics.
Research associates the chemical with hormone disruption, neurological damage, immune system toxicity, and developmental harm in children, affecting reproductive and nervous systems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies it as a probable carcinogen.
Global production of TBBPA is hard to quantify, yet at least 552 million pounds were manufactured in 2016, and the chemical is present in an estimated 70 % of electronics worldwide. Studies have shown that flame retardants are frequently unnecessary and ineffective across many applications.
The United States authorized its widespread use decades ago, but the EPA must periodically evaluate new scientific data for certain toxic chemicals already on the market. The chemical readily leaches from consumer products into household dust. Detected dust concentrations, combined with daily exposure from multiple sources, pose a risk to the public, especially children, according to advocates.
“Low‑molecular‑weight TBBPA, as employed in plastics and consumer goods, warrants restriction,” said Arlene Blum, director of the Green Science Policy Institute, an organization that extensively studies flame retardants, pushes for stronger safeguards, and collaborates with industries to eliminate them. “It can infiltrate human bodies, contributing to cancer and behavioral disorders. Infants and toddlers who crawl on dusty surfaces and mouth their hands are especially at risk.”
The EPA did not provide an immediate response to a request for comment.
‘A huge problem’
In its assessment, the EPA erroneously asserts that TBBPA is no longer widely used in children’s clothing and other textiles, a stance that represents a sudden reversal from its previous position, the Earthjustice nonprofit noted in its comment on the risk assessment.
In the draft risk assessment, the EPA claimed “TBBPA is unlikely to be used in fabrics and textiles,” citing a finding from the American Chemistry Council (ACC), an industry trade association representing major flame retardant manufacturers.
However, Lakendra Barajas, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, pointed out that the ACC offered no evidence to substantiate its claim, a position contradicted by another EPA assessment that identified continued widespread use of TBBPA in textiles, including 96 types of children’s apparel. Washington state records also indicate its presence in children’s products such as pajamas and strollers.
“There is a significant underestimation of the risk, and they are disregarding various exposure pathways … and we are clearly seeing them cite industry sources,” Barajas remarked.
In its comment, Earthjustice outlined additional scenarios where the EPA underestimated risk, including exposures from the environment, recycled plastics, contaminated food, and occupational settings, among others.
The assessment also disclosed a strong dependence on industry‑generated science to gauge overall exposure, including a 2015 study by Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (Tera), an organization that receives partial funding from industry and has a track record of challenging regulations on toxic chemicals.
The EPA cited Tera’s study to support its conclusion that TBBPA levels in consumer products and dust do not pose a risk, even to infants, according to Doa, the former EPA scientist. The study was originally commissioned by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
The agency also placed substantial reliance on research from the ACC that examined how much TBBPA enters dust. The testing period lasted only 30 days, a timeframe the EPA itself admitted is insufficient, Doa noted.
“I believe the EPA underestimated exposure partly for this reason,” Doa added. “Their heavy reliance on the ACC is a significant problem.”
In its risk assessment, the EPA argued that concerns about toxicity to young children rest on “overly protective, if not unrealistic, assumptions” regarding exposure levels to TBBPA. The agency repeatedly emphasized its desire to avoid overestimating the risk.
“This is a recurring theme among the EPA’s political staff,” Doa observed.
Meanwhile, a committee tasked with ensuring the EPA employs sound science has been populated with industry‑aligned scientists appointed by the Trump administration, some of whom contributed to TBBPA research.
Among the newly appointed members of the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals is Michael Dourson, founder of Tera, whose company produced the industry‑aligned studies the EPA now cites to downplay risks. Essentially, Dourson is evaluating his own firm’s work, raising conflict‑of‑interest concerns.
Despite this, even the committee initially suggested that the EPA may have underestimated the risk in certain instances, according to Penny Fenner‑Crisp, a former EPA water division manager who has worked with Dourson.
Fenner‑Crisp filed comments on behalf of the Environmental Protection Network nonprofit, criticizing the risk assessment and raising procedural concerns about public participation. She noted that the EPA seemed to be accelerating the process, a move that could be leveraged in future legal challenges.
“Maintaining the integrity of the process is essential, as regulatory decisions must rest on solid, credible scientific evidence to ensure the adequate protection of public health and the environment,” Fenner‑Crisp wrote. “The American public deserves nothing less.”
