Immediately as Deputy Administrator David Fotouhi concluded his remarks at the opening of last week’s meeting of the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee to the EPA (CHPAC), I tipped my name tent up, a signal that I hoped to speak. There was only time for one more question. The mood was tense as I breathed deliberately and began:
“I appreciate you taking the time to join us, Deputy Administrator. I am a professor, and I am also the mother of Katherine, who died at age eight of cancer we have every reason to believe was caused by unwitting exposure to chlorpyrifos sprayed for mosquitos.
Recently, Sharon Lerner characterized you as a “lawyer who has represented companies accused of harming people and the environment through pollution.”
I am curious what you would say to American parents about why they should trust a lawyer who has defended toxic industries to protect their children from toxic chemicals like chlorpyrifos, PFAS, and PCBs, especially when Administrator Lee Zeldin has already rolled back many of the meager protections Americans had.”
His face somber and reddening slightly, Fatouhi replied at length, emphasizing that he does not always agree with the clients he represents, among other things.
The deputy administrator shook my hand as he left the room and seemed open to more discussion in response to my question. I hope that was genuine. He had begun by sharing that he too is a cancer survivor. And I like to think that people can see the light and begin protecting others from environmental threats, just like Rob Billott, the lawyer in the riveting film Dark Waters who switched from representing DuPont to prosecuting them for knowingly poisoning whole communities—the whole world—with forever chemicals.
A change of heart is not currently looking likely, and of course I am prepared not to be reappointed at the end of my first three-year stint in February, as I normally would be, given my active participation. Under an administration that is willing to fire employees for expressing the least dissent, all such conventions are discarded by the wayside. I can’t worry about such things—I believe I have the esteem of the many people in that room whom I admire and respect—and I am unsure much could be accomplished under the Trump administration regardless.
At least I had a chance to ask the plain question I think is on everyone’s minds, including the MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) moms whose agenda, currently under consideration at HHS, we also addressed. I was also able to ask questions of a different group of new EPA employees about MAHA.
Travis Voyles, Associate Deputy Administrator, laid out the plan, claiming that every decision at the EPA would be viewed through the MAHA lens. He did not always make sense, however. In response, I began by commending the MAHA report for correctly identifying that 40% of American children have a chronic disease like cancer, autism, ADHD, obesity, diabetes, or asthma. I mentioned again that I am speaking as the parent of a child lost to one of these diseases and then continued:
“I was thrilled to read the MAHA report and see people identifying these diseases, which we know are caused by petrochemicals, and especially the naming of corporate influence. But with new appointments at EPA, many of them from these same industries, how is that conversation going to go? How can you reconcile these seemingly disparate ideas?
Also, you said that EPA aims to increase public confidence in the pesticide registration process, but that does not seem warranted. The pesticide approval process has been a complete failure. In the years since Katherine died, people have tried to ban chlorpyrifos, but that pesticide is still harming children. And we absolutely should focus on educating the public, but that places the burden on the individual, and these are systemic problems. ”
I then said I had ideas about solutions but that I was sure many others in the room did as well. And they did. Voyles’s response was vague, illogical, and circular. He reasserted that they would continue to deregulate and at the same time protect children. When asked how that would work, there was some handwaving in the direction of more money improving health outcomes. For whom? I wondered to myself.
Ultimately, one person pushing back against a corrupt administration and a sclerotic agency captured by industry on one committee will not be the thing that makes a difference. But if those small acts of resistance are multiplied, maybe change will come. I am at peace having had my say. My friends on the committee reassured me that I appeared calm and polite, while uttering more direct challenges than are usually said in the decorum of an official meeting at EPA. “Mic drop,” said one. “Brave,” said another. Those are the comments I will treasure up in my heart.
I am quoted from this conversation in Politico:
Consider a free trial if interested in the full read.
