Catfish Farmers, Undertakers, Miners Helped Bring About Major EPA Deregulation

From THE DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

Benjamin Roberts
Associate Editor

Catfish farmers, funeral home operators and miners — among a host of other industry groups — convinced the Environmental Protection Agency to kill its forty-year-old chemical regulation system.

EPA Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi issued a memo on April 27 ending the 1985 Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) method of classifying hazardous chemicals. Numerous stakeholders have criticized IRIS for dramatically overestimating the toxicity for certain industry-specific compounds to many business’ detriment. (RELATED: America Just Made Its Biggest Critical Mineral Find In Years — But There’s A Problem)

IRIS was implemented via administrative action and has never been approved by Congress. IRIS toxicological assessments are far-reaching enough that over 80 disparate industry groups signed on to an American Chemistry Council (ACC) open letter to EPA Secretary Lee Zeldin in January 2025.

IRIS-generated toxicity values include carcinogen estimations and daily pollutant exposure considered safe for human life. EPA program offices nationwide have used these metrics to establish climate superfund cleanup standards, air quality rules, and inform chemical risk evaluations under the Toxic Controlled Substances Act. Climate superfunds are state legislative initiatives that force fossil fuels companies to pay damages for supposed climate change harms.

“While the IRIS program was designed originally to promote consistency, the development of a risk assessment often includes science policy judgments – many of which are informed by statutory and regulatory authority and objectives,” Fotouhi’s memo reads. “Over the years, it has become more clear that having a single program within one office at EPA make these judgments for all hazard and dose–response assessments for all of EPA is not optimal for developing fit–for–purpose risk assessments tailored to meet specific legal, statutory, and regulatory obligations.” 

The Deputy Administrator’s letter also notes that “the IRIS toxicity value for ethylene oxide (EtO), a chemical critical for medical equipment sterilization, has been criticized because it was at least 10,000 times lower than levels naturally occurring in the human body.” (RELATED: Power Company Faces Legal Fight For Making Too Much Energy)

Rather than using IRIS to issue hazard classifications for virtually every chemical, the EPA will devolve this responsibility to particular program offices. EPA program offices are specialized departments that exist to implement particular laws like the Atomic Energy Act and Clean Air Act.

Industry stakeholders responded positively to Fotouhi’s memo.

“Formaldehyde is a critical chemical used by funeral directors across America. Funeral directors are taught in mortuary school how to safely use formaldehyde,” National Funeral Directors Association (NFDA) Senior Vice President Lesley Witter told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Our members have been concerned about access to this critical tool due to regulations based on a flawed IRIS value for formaldehyde. We’re happy to see EPA moving away relying on unrealistic IRIS assessments and relying on high-quality Gold Standard science moving forward.”

The NFDA was one of the signatories of the ACC’s January letter, along with groups such as the Catfish Farmers of America and the National Mining Association (NMA).

“EPA’s IRIS formaldehyde assessment set toxicity level below the amount of formaldehyde produced by human breath,” added a chemical industry source granted anonymity to discuss sensitive policy matters.

“In the past, IRIS risk assessments have applied overly conservative approaches that have driven regulatory standards arbitrarily lower—sometimes even below background levels—while offering little to no benefits,” an NMA spokesperson agreed. “We applaud the EPA’s revised approach through its newly formed Office of Applied Science and Environmental Solutions to conduct fact-based assessments moving forward.”

The Society of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA) also supports Fotouhi’s rescission of IRIS. “SOCMA has previously raised concerns about the EPA’s IRIS Program, particularly regarding transparency and the use of the best available science, and continues to support risk assessment approaches that are scientifically robust and predictable.” SOCMA is the only U.S. industry association representing boutique and specialty chemical manufacturers.

“Toxicity values in IRIS’ hexavalent chromium assessment would result in drinking water standards lower than average background levels of naturally occurring chromium in groundwater,” another industry official told the DCNF. The official noted that the IRIS standards “would have imposed massive costs on water systems nationwide” with no measurable improvement in public health outcomes.

Despite the move’s warm reception among the private sector, ACC Vice President of Regulatory and Scientific Affairs Dr. Kimberly Wise White told the DCNF there was more to be done.

“ACC has highlighted concerns about EPA’s IRIS program, which has lacked scientific rigor and remains on the GAO’s High-Risk List for programs that are vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement,” White said. “We have called for the disbandment of the IRIS program, the return of responsibilities to program offices, and also support legislation in Congress, the No IRIS Act that would help ensure regulations are based on high-quality science.”

Republican Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman introduced the No Industrial Restrictions in Secret (No IRIS) Act in February 2025. Grothman is attempting to codify the Trump EPA’s statutory revisions.

“In too many cases, IRIS assessments pushed impractical toxicity standards and emissions thresholds far below naturally occurring ambient levels. That’s a direct hit on small businesses who don’t have the resources to chase ever-changing or unattainable standards,” the lawmaker told the DCNF. “When you set targets that are effectively impossible to meet, you don’t get better outcomes; you get stalled projects, fewer jobs, less innovation, and manufacturing outsourced to countries whose scientific standards are already more lax than the United States. That’s exactly what we’ve seen, particularly for manufacturers and small operators trying to stay competitive.”

Republican Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy introduced the No IRIS Act to the Senate alongside Grothman. It has been referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

“I’m encouraged to see the EPA taking steps to address these issues and moving toward a more transparent, accountable process grounded in sound science. That should provide much-needed certainty for job creators and help ensure that environmental protections go hand-in-hand with economic growth,” Grothman added. “If we truly care about reducing emissions worldwide, it needs to be a priority to keep manufacturing in the United States in a manner that reflects Gold Standard Science.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 11 votes
Article Rating
11 Comments
May 8, 2026 10:31 pm

Whatever isn’t banned is mandatory…

Tom Johnson
Reply to  johnesm
May 9, 2026 4:32 am

There are roughly 4models for governance in Europe:
1 The British model – Everything is permitted, except that which is forbidden.
2 The German model – Everything is forbidden, except that which is permitted.
3 The Russian Model – Everything is forbidden, including that which is permitted.
4 The Italian model – Everything is permitted, including that which is forbidden.

Which is best?

Reply to  Tom Johnson
May 9, 2026 10:41 am

1, 2, and 3 all sound like California models. Number 4 sounds like Nevada.

JD Lunkerman
Reply to  johnesm
May 11, 2026 8:05 am

No the California Model is- Everything will be forbidden, if at some point it makes a progressive feel bad.

Tom Halla
May 9, 2026 4:14 am

This looks like a remnant of Nixon’s War on Cancer, or California’s Proposition 65.

May 9, 2026 4:51 am

Speed-running environmental and labour protections from Bangladesh.

MarkW
Reply to  MyUsernameReloaded
May 9, 2026 1:46 pm

Poor little socialist, actually believes that all government regulations are good, and more is always better.

oeman50
May 9, 2026 4:56 am

EPA has long used the “Best Available Technology” criteria to establish emission limits. That essentially allows them to ratchet down the requirements based on every improving analytical technology. It has nothing to do with actual effects on the environment. This is the impact of the linear no threshold model.

What a crock.

Reply to  oeman50
May 9, 2026 8:43 am

“That essentially allows them to ratchet down the requirements based on every improving analytical technology”

That sounds like California’s regulatory approach. “If it can be detected, it must be banned!”
But “Best Available Technology” also is supposed to involve the practical and economic ability to remove/reduce something that is genuinely harmful.

May 9, 2026 12:21 pm

Lee Zeldin, US EPA Administrator During Hearings Before the US Senate
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin calls out Democrat Senator Sheldon WhiteClub: “I’m not going to take morality lessons from people who join, you know, all‑white country clubs.” 
Zeldin explained: “When predictions are made in the past… will have a range of the pessimistic to the optimistic. And to justify, for example, the 2009 endangerment finding, they were adopting the most pessimistic views of the science. 
Now, when you get to 2026, great news, you’re able to rely on present day facts in 2026, rather than any bad assumptions from 2009. 
And just because you take exception when a member of Congress says in January of 2019, in 12 years the world’s about to end, if we’re sitting here today saying, well, gosh, it’s only four years and nine months left, I don’t think the world is about to end, they want to vilify you as if you’re denying science. 
I mean, I just saw a clip yesterday where Al Gore was talking about global freezing. I’m having trouble keeping up. I thought it was global warming, and now it’s global freezing. 
And I don’t know what kind of money is made. You want to know how [they’re] making money from their climate grift. 
Well, what won’t get referenced by your colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, who bring up the greenhouse gas reduction fund is that the money was going to former Obama and Biden officials. 
The money was going to Democratic donors. The conflicts of interests that we saw. The amount of self-dealing, the unqualified recipients.
The Climate United Fund CEO was a special assistant in OMB during the Obama–Biden administration. They received $6.9 billion dollars. And we could go down the list with that entity. 
You go through the Coalition for Green Capital, about a Biden–Harris climate advisor serving on the board or joining the board in ’23 while the organization was applying for GGRF. 
Power Forward Community CEO, CEO of Fannie Mae during the Obama–Biden administration. 
By the way, if we had 10 more minutes, I could just go through conflicts of interest. They’re not offended by that. 
So, we just want to stick to the truth. We want to stick to the to the science. And if you don’t agree with them, you don’t follow their logic, well, they’ll want to vilify you. 
But hey, as long as we stay true to these facts, it’s good to go. 
I told Senator Sheldon WhiteClub today that I won’t be listening to, or caring about, any of his lessons on morality knowing that he joined an all-white Rhode Island Country Club. 
I’m also done with the likes of AOC, Al Gore, John Kerry, and the rest of the lying cabal that make stupid climate predictions, plunder tens of billions of tax dollars, enrich their well-connected allies, and are committed to strangulating out of existence entire sectors of our economy. 
Climate alarmist AOC wants to be taken seriously while also insisting the world is imminently about to end due to climate change (Just under 5 years remain on her nutty Jan 2019 prediction that only 12 years of life are left on Earth). 
Al Gore is now speaking publicly about his concern with global freezing after decades of grift-talking about global warming. 
“Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro,” said Gore in 2006 (There’s still snow on Kilimanjaro year-round).
Gore also predicted in 2009 ice-free Arctic summers within 5-7 years. 
John Kerry warned in 2009 that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013. 
All these people, and their followers, are dishonest, power-hungry hacks. 
The GREEN NEW SCAM is DEAD!!!”

Sparta Nova 4
May 11, 2026 10:47 am

I wonder what ISIS would have determined about H2O.
In sufficient quantities, H2O is a proven killer.