On Sunday, The Dallas Morning News ran a story detailing the flaws in a new EPA risk assessment. Federal agencies use the process of risk assessment to evaluate the extent to which public hazards may adversely affect health, safety and the environment. The assessment under fire is the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Endocrine disruptors (EDs) are substances which affect the endocrine system of the human body. The endocrine system regulates certain mood, growth and development functions including hormonal and thyroid functions. EDs are thought to be commonly present in a wide array of consumer products including finished plastics. The article highlights problems of the ED risk assessment which critics accuse of being designed to purposefully minimize the adverse effects of EDs. From the method of testing dosages to the choice of rat species, a host of factors in the risk assessment design appear to be fishy. Not surprisingly, industry is blamed in influencing EPA's design. The article does not go into detail as to why EPA is pursuing an ED risk assessment, so let Reg•Watch sum it up: EPA has been absolutely atrocious in studying and regulating EDs. In 1996, Congress passed a law prompting EPA to determine substances which disrupt the human endocrine system. Eleven years later, how many has EPA studied? Wait for it…none. Not even one. Meanwhile, EDs affect hormonal function and recent evidence shows EDs may be leading to hermaphroditic fish in the Potomac River. Americans are probably exposed to lots of EDs, but public knowledge is paltry compared to the potential for danger. In a February House hearing, Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) questioned EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson on the agency's lack of progress. Johnson's smug response was, "We have been doing the research, but there's this pesky thing called science." Though Johnson was being sarcastic, the designers of this risk assessment do indeed appear to find science pesky. After an 11 year wait, the least EPA could do is design a scientifically sound and thorough risk assessment. Scientists criticize EPA chemical screening program [Dallas Morning News] (Thanks to the Center for Science in the Public Interest for pointing out this story.)