
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sometimes does fulfill its purpose of protecting the American people from toxic chemicals, but at other times it fails to do so. In cases of EPA failure to do its job, a federal law, the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which exists to protect people and the environment from toxic chemicals, allows citizens and non-profits to sue the EPA and get a court order to force it to act to protect the public. That is what happened in the famous lawsuit over water fluoridation, which resulted in the trial court ordering EPA to act decisively to protect children from the “unreasonable risk” posed by water fluoridation. EPA has pushed back by appealing the fluoride case (hearing scheduled for March 3, 10 a.m. Pacific time). Now, legislators have presented a draft discussion bill in Congress which would do away with this provision of TSCA as well as weaken other aspects of this important law.
Just a few weeks ago, on January 22, 2026, the Subcommittee on Environment of the House Energy and Commerce Committee heard the draft discussion bill entitled Chemicals in Commerce: Legislative Proposal to Modernize America’s Chemical Safety Law, Strengthen Critical Supply Chains, and Grow Domestic Manufacturing, which is being touted as beneficial to the economy and for access to critical chemicals, but critics are warning that it will turn EPA more into a rubber-stamp approval mill for toxic chemicals. The bill would also include a provision to wipe out the ability for citizen groups to bring action against the EPA to get it to follow the science and protect the public as necessary.
TSCA was originally signed into law in 1976, but it was reviewed and updated in 2016 by the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act (LCSA) because it had failed to regulate harmful chemicals. The idea was that the law could be reviewed in 2026 under a “sunset” clause for fees, so Congress must act this year for continued funding. But it is not mandated to review the entire law. So now, instead of a review of the strength and weakness of TSCA, and an exploration of how to best ensure that the environment and the public are kept safe from dangerous chemicals, pro-industry Congress members are entertaining bill language that would streamline the environmental review process and expedite the approval of chemicals to support the chemical companies. Health and environmental protection would take a back seat.
Tracey Woodruff
One of the witnesses who testified at the January 22, 2026 hearing was Tracey J. Woodruff, PhD, MPH, who, in the past, served as a senior scientist and policy advisor for the EPA. Woodruff testified that the changes would “blindfold EPA from chemical harms and tie the Agency’s hands from addressing serious health risks.” She said that the proposed changes to TSCA would be a “wholesale destruction of the law.” Liz Hitchcock, a policy advocate with the non-profit group Toxic-Free Future agreed, saying “This bill is a chemical lobby wish list.”
With the course it has been on, the EPA seems to be something of a “captured agency,” more serving the special interests of industry than health and the environment. With the “modernization” measures now being proposed in Congress, it would become even more deeply captured and the ability of citizen groups provide oversight by bringing legal action under TSCA, as was done in the fluoride lawsuit, could well be ended.
RECENT NEWS


Will Health Freedom See Gains In 2026?
January 8, 2026

Health Information Exchanges and Your Medical Privacy
December 30, 2025

National Health Freedom Action: 2025 Year in Review
December 18, 2025