The No IRIS Act: A dangerous surrender to corporate interests at the expense of public health
By willowt // 2025-03-11
Copy
 
  • The "No IRIS Act," introduced in Congress, aims to prohibit the EPA from using scientific assessments by its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program, undermining the agency's ability to regulate toxic chemicals and protect Americans from carcinogens and other harmful substances.
  • The legislation is driven by the chemical industry, which seeks to avoid the costs of cleaning up pollution and ensuring product safety, prioritizing profits over public health. Critics argue this move represents corporate cronyism rather than genuine conservatism.
  • Established in 1985 under President Reagan, IRIS provides science-based assessments of chemical toxicity, forming the foundation of EPA regulations. Eliminating IRIS would leave the EPA unable to determine safe exposure levels for hundreds of chemicals, jeopardizing public health.
  • IRIS assessments have empowered communities to combat pollution, such as in Willowbrook, Illinois, where ethylene oxide emissions were exposed, and in St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, where chloroprene risks were identified. These successes highlight the program's importance in safeguarding vulnerable populations.
  • The No IRIS Act contradicts conservative principles of limited but effective government, prioritizing corporate interests over the government's duty to protect citizens. Critics urge Congress to reject the bill, emphasizing the need to preserve public health safeguards over industry profits.
In a stunning display of government overreach and corporate cronyism, Congress is poised to dismantle one of the most critical tools protecting Americans from toxic chemicals. The so-called “No IRIS Act,” introduced in both the House and Senate, would prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from using scientific assessments conducted by its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program. This move, championed by industry lobbyists and their allies in Congress, threatens to gut the EPA’s ability to regulate harmful chemicals, leaving Americans exposed to carcinogens and other toxins. The No IRIS Act is not about reducing bureaucracy — it’s about handing over public health decisions to corporations with a vested interest in keeping dangerous chemicals on the market. This is not conservatism; this is corruption.

The IRIS program: A Reagan-era success under threat

The IRIS program was established in 1985 under President Ronald Reagan to provide a consistent, science-based approach to assessing the risks of toxic chemicals. For nearly four decades, IRIS has served as the backbone of the EPA’s regulatory framework, offering independent, nonpartisan evaluations of chemicals’ toxicity. These assessments are used to set limits on pollutants in air, water and soil, ensuring that Americans are not exposed to levels of chemicals that could cause cancer, respiratory diseases, or other health problems. Now, this vital program is under attack. The No IRIS Act would bar the EPA from using IRIS assessments in any environmental regulations, enforcement actions, or permits. Without these scientific evaluations, the EPA would be flying blind, unable to determine safe exposure levels for hundreds of chemicals. William Boyd, a professor at UCLA School of Law, put it bluntly: “They’re trying to undermine the foundations for doing any kind of regulation. If you get rid of step one, you’re totally in the dark.”

Corporate interests over public health

The push to dismantle IRIS is not coming from concerned citizens or grassroots activists—it’s being driven by the chemical industry. Companies that produce and use toxic chemicals have long opposed IRIS, claiming its assessments are based on “questionable science” and impose “billions in economic costs.” These claims are echoed in Project 2025, the ultraconservative policy blueprint guiding the Trump administration’s second term. But let’s be clear: The “economic costs” these companies are worried about are the costs of cleaning up their pollution and ensuring their products don’t harm public health. The real cost of the No IRIS Act will be borne by American families, who will face increased exposure to cancer-causing chemicals like formaldehyde, ethylene oxide and chloroprene. Robert Sussman, a veteran attorney who has worked both for the EPA and chemical companies, called the effort to eliminate IRIS “completely off the deep end.” He added, “What they’re really trying to do here is prevent the EPA from doing assessments of their chemicals.”

The human cost of ignoring science

The IRIS program has had a tangible impact on communities across the country. In Willowbrook, Illinois, an IRIS assessment revealed that a sterilizing plant was releasing ethylene oxide, a carcinogen, into the air at levels 30 times higher than previously believed. Armed with this information, local residents organized protests, lobbied lawmakers and ultimately succeeded in shutting down the plant. In St. John the Baptist Parish, Louisiana, an IRIS assessment of chloroprene—a chemical emitted by a nearby plant—showed that the community had the highest cancer risk from air pollution in the country. Robert Taylor, a lifelong resident, said, “I didn’t realize the depth of the poisoning that was taking place until EPA came to our community in 2016 and brought us that IRIS report.” Taylor’s wife died of cancer in December 2024, a tragedy he attributes to the toxic fumes they breathed for decades. These stories are not outliers. IRIS assessments have repeatedly exposed the dangers of toxic chemicals and empowered communities to fight back against polluters. If the No IRIS Act passes, these victories will become far harder to achieve.

A conservative case for protecting IRIS

The No IRIS Act is a capitulation to corporate interests. It undermines the EPA’s ability to do its job, leaving Americans vulnerable to the harmful effects of toxic chemicals. It’s time for conservatives in Congress to stand up to the chemical lobby and reject this dangerous legislation. Daniel Rosenberg, director of federal toxics policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, put it best: “The current political alignment is clearly very favorable to the chemical lobby, but their actual agenda has never been popular. There’s never been a case where people are in favor of more carcinogens in their environment.” Congress should listen to the people, not the lobbyists. The health of the nation depends on it. Sources include: ChildrensHealthDefense.org ProPublica.org WaterEducation.org
Copy