A cracked glass dome protecting a forest, representing data confidentiality and environmental health.

Silent Spring Revisited: How EPA's Data Confidentiality Proposal Could Impact Environmental Health

Mira Elwood in Politics & Policy June 2025 • 5 min read.

"A controversial EPA proposal to restrict the use of sensitive scientific data sparks debate over transparency versus public health protection."

A contentious proposal by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeks to limit the scientific information the agency can use for regulatory purposes. While the proposal has garnered support from industry, it has faced strong opposition from health and environmental advocates. However, there is a point of agreement among these opposing factions, as well as scientific groups, state regulators, and the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering & Medicine: the need for the EPA to continue using certain types of confidential information without mandating public disclosure of raw data.

The EPA's proposal, initially released in April, stipulates that the agency should only use data and scientific models that are "publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation." According to the agency, this measure aims to enhance transparency and boost public confidence in the EPA's decisions. Once finalized, the plan will have significant implications for the agency's health-based decisions related to air, water, and soil pollution, as well as the safety evaluations of commercial chemicals and pesticides.

The agency has received almost 500,000 written comments on the proposal. A quick review reveals mostly one- or two-sentence responses expressing simple support or opposition to the plan, often with identical wording from individuals, which are the results of advocacy group campaigns. The agency also received many responses with detailed criticism and recommendations for changing the proposal.

The Heart of the Matter: Balancing Transparency and Data Protection

A cracked glass dome protecting a forest, representing data confidentiality and environmental health.

In their comments, the presidents of the National Academies encourage the agency to seek expert guidance to revamp the plan. While National Academies' reports have generally recommended that scientific data and models used for regulation should be publicly available, the presidents warn that "overly stringent requirements for transparency may cause valid evidence to be discarded and thereby pose a threat to the credibility of regulatory science."

The concerns of the National Academies' presidents are widely shared. Strict requirements for publicly available data "might negatively impact the EPA's ability to safeguard human and environmental health," according to a comment from the American Chemical Society (ACS). ACS notes that such limitations could complicate the agency's ability to comply with environmental laws, since Congress has written provisions into many statutes mandating that EPA use "best available science."

Data Integrity: The primary argument against the proposal revolves around the potential loss of valuable scientific evidence. Overly strict transparency requirements could lead to the exclusion of critical data, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of regulatory science.
Public Health: Many stakeholders worry that the proposed changes could hinder the EPA's ability to protect public health and the environment. Restrictions on data usage might compromise the agency's capacity to address environmental risks effectively.
Scientific Rigor: Commenters have pointed out that the EPA has not adequately justified the need for such a sweeping change, nor has it demonstrated how the proposal will rectify existing deficiencies. There is a concern that the proposal is based on a flawed assumption that public availability automatically equates to scientific merit.
HIPAA Concerns: There are specific concerns about the use of epidemiology studies, which often involve sensitive medical patient data. Regulations such as the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) protect this data, and the new proposal could prevent the EPA from using such studies.

Several commenters point out that EPA didn't explain what deficiencies it is trying to solve through the plan. The California Environmental Protection Agency says the proposal is based on "a fundamentally flawed assumption" that public availability of data determines its scientific merit. Many commenters worry that the proposed change would stop EPA from relying on epidemiology studies to set environmental standards. Ten U.S. senators and, separately, a group of academics and officials from Harvard University point out that data from these studies, which involve medical patients, are protected under the 1996 Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act.

The Road Ahead: Navigating Complex Terrain

As the EPA reviews the hundreds of thousands of comments received, the future of the data confidentiality proposal remains uncertain. The agency's Science Advisory Board has formally requested a review of the proposal, signaling the scientific community's deep concerns. Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has yet to respond to the request, leaving stakeholders in suspense as they await a final decision that will undoubtedly shape the landscape of environmental regulation and public health protection.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: 10.1021/cen-09640-feature4, Alternate LINK

Title: Confidentiality At The Fore

Subject: General Medicine

Journal: C&EN Global Enterprise

Publisher: American Chemical Society (ACS)

Authors: Cheryl Hogue

Published: 2018-10-08

Everything You Need To Know

What does the EPA's data confidentiality proposal entail?

The EPA's data confidentiality proposal seeks to limit the scientific information the agency can use for regulatory purposes, stipulating that the agency should primarily use data and scientific models that are "publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent validation." The stated aim is to enhance transparency and public confidence in the EPA's decisions. The plan has broad implications for health-based decisions related to air, water, and soil pollution, as well as the safety evaluations of commercial chemicals and pesticides.

Why are environmental advocates and scientific groups concerned about the EPA's data confidentiality proposal?

Critics of the EPA's data confidentiality proposal, including environmental advocates, scientific groups like the American Chemical Society (ACS), and state regulators, are concerned about the potential loss of valuable scientific evidence. They worry that overly strict transparency requirements could lead to the exclusion of critical data, undermining the credibility and effectiveness of regulatory science. The National Academies' presidents also share this concern, warning that overly stringent requirements may cause valid evidence to be discarded and thereby pose a threat to the credibility of regulatory science.

What are the potential implications of the EPA's data confidentiality proposal for public health and scientific rigor?

Stakeholders worry that the EPA's data confidentiality proposal could hinder the agency's ability to protect public health and the environment. Restrictions on data usage might compromise the agency's capacity to address environmental risks effectively. Commenters have also pointed out that the EPA has not adequately justified the need for such a sweeping change, nor has it demonstrated how the proposal will rectify existing deficiencies. They argue that the proposal is based on a flawed assumption that public availability automatically equates to scientific merit.

How does the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA) relate to the EPA's data confidentiality proposal, and what concerns does it raise?

Epidemiology studies often involve sensitive medical patient data protected by regulations like the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act (HIPAA). The EPA's data confidentiality proposal raises concerns that it could prevent the agency from using such studies. Ten U.S. senators and a group of academics from Harvard University have pointed out that data from these studies are protected under HIPAA, which could severely limit the EPA's ability to conduct comprehensive risk assessments.

What is the current status of the EPA's data confidentiality proposal, and what are the next steps?

The Science Advisory Board has formally requested a review of the EPA's data confidentiality proposal, signaling the scientific community's deep concerns. Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler has yet to respond to the request, leaving stakeholders in suspense. The future of the proposal and its impact on environmental regulation and public health protection remain uncertain as the EPA reviews the hundreds of thousands of comments received.