The EPA says it still cares about forever chemicals, but health advocates are wary

The Verge - Apr 29th, 2025

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a new initiative to tackle 'forever chemicals,' scientifically known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), which are linked to cancer and other health issues. The plan includes efforts to study these chemicals further and develop guidelines to limit pollution from manufacturers. However, the announcement has left health and environmental advocates skeptical about its effectiveness, as the details remain unclear. The EPA has not committed to enforcing existing limits on PFAS in drinking water nor defending existing regulations that classify PFAS as hazardous chemicals.

The context of this announcement is marked by the EPA's previous attempts under the Trump administration to roll back environmental protections, which drew criticism from advocates and lawmakers. The Biden administration had previously set federally enforceable limits on PFAS in drinking water, a move challenged by industry groups. The EPA's current stance and future actions on these regulations are under review, with deadlines looming. This ongoing legal and regulatory battle highlights the complexity of addressing PFAS contamination and its significance for public health and environmental safety.

Pfas Trump Administration Biden Administration Environmental Protection Epa Lee Zeldin Forever Chemicals Drinking Water Legal Regulations

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.4

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article addresses a timely and important public health issue, focusing on the EPA's efforts to regulate PFAS chemicals. It highlights criticisms and regulatory challenges, which are crucial for understanding the complexities of environmental policy. However, the article's accuracy is compromised by factual inaccuracies and a lack of authoritative sourcing. While it provides a narrative that can engage readers and provoke discussion, its impact is limited by the absence of detailed evidence and balanced perspectives. To enhance its reliability, the article would benefit from more precise sourcing and a broader representation of viewpoints.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims about the EPA's actions regarding PFAS, but it lacks precision and full verifiability. For instance, it claims that the EPA announced new efforts to study PFAS and develop guidelines, yet it does not provide specific details about these initiatives. Additionally, the story mentions the EPA's indecision on enforcing existing PFAS limits, which contrasts with the confirmed Biden administration's actions on setting enforceable standards. The mention of Lee Zeldin as EPA Administrator is inaccurate, as Michael Regan holds that position. These discrepancies highlight the need for more precise sourcing and verification.

Balance

The article attempts to present multiple perspectives on the EPA's actions, including criticisms from health and environmental advocates and statements from the EPA itself. However, it leans more towards skepticism about the EPA's effectiveness, quoting critics who liken current efforts to past administrations' inaction. The story could benefit from a more balanced representation by including more detailed responses from the EPA or industry perspectives to provide a fuller picture of the situation.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and understandable, with a logical flow from the introduction of the issue to the discussion of the EPA's plans and criticisms. However, some sections could be clearer, especially where it discusses legal actions and regulatory details. The use of quotes adds to the narrative but sometimes lacks context, which can affect comprehension.

Source quality

The article relies heavily on general statements from the EPA and criticisms from advocacy groups, without citing specific studies or official documents that support its claims. The lack of direct references to authoritative sources, such as EPA reports or scientific studies, undermines the credibility of the information presented. Additionally, the misattribution of the EPA Administrator suggests a lapse in verifying basic facts.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose the methodology behind the EPA's plans or the criteria for the criticisms it presents. While it mentions lawsuits and regulatory actions, it lacks transparency about the sources of this information and the context in which these events are occurring. More explicit attribution and context would enhance the transparency of the reporting.