American Chemistry Council


Scott Pruitt’s EPA Grant Ban Doesn’t Apply to States or Tribes. Here’s Why That’s Interesting.

, Deputy director, Center for Science & Democracy

This afternoon, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt announced that nobody who receives an EPA grant should be allowed to provide scientific advice to the agency. Yep—those scientists, the ones that the EPA thinks do the most promising research related to public health and the environment? Their advice isn’t welcome anymore. We’ve written a lot about how this represents a major step in the political takeover of science advice at EPA. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Photo: Gage Skidmore/CC BY-SA 2.0 (Wikimedia)

Scott Pruitt Deals Yet Another Blow to Independent Science Advice at the EPA

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

Before September, the EPA’s Science Advisory Board was composed of 47 scientists volunteering their time as public servants to help advise the agency on issues ranging from the safety of selected chemicals to the types of models used by the agency to sufficiently study emissions. Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Who Not to Pick for the EPA’s Science Advisory Board

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

In its effort to fill fifteen positions on the Science Advisory Board, the EPA has posted a list of 132 nominees to be a part of the esteemed EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB is a group of over forty scientists, experts in a range of disciplines, who provide peer review and expert advice on EPA issue areas.

While many of the nominees are highly qualified and distinguished in their fields, there are a handful of individuals that are extremely concerning due to their direct financial conflicts, their lack of experience and/or their historical opposition to the work of the EPA in advancing its mission to protect public health and the environment.

Read more >

Bookmark and Share

Science Triumphs Over Disinformation in Initial Flame Retardant Victory

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

In a stunning victory for consumer safety and a powerful display of the ability of independent science to spur policy change, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) voted this week to ban a class of additive, polymeric organhalogen flame retardants (OFRs) that are present in many consumer products. Last week, I was one of many individuals who testified before the CPSC urging the body to grant a petition to ban the class of organohalogen flame retardants from four classes of consumer products: mattresses, children’s products, furniture, and electronic casings.

Read more >

Eric/Creative Commons (Flickr)
Flickr/Tracy Ducasse
Bookmark and Share

Consumer Product Safety Commission Takes On Flame Retardants

, science and policy analyst, Center for Science and Democracy

In 2015, Earthjustice and Consumer Federation of America, on behalf of a broad coalition of health, consumer, science and firefighter organizations, petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban a class of flame retardants, additive organohalogen flame retardants, from children’s products, furniture, mattresses, and electronic casings as hazardous substances. Read more >

Bookmark and Share