Trump and “junk science”: when industry blocks regulation

The main thing to remember:

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has stipulated that scientific studies that publish their data will be given priority over those with confidential data in developing regulations;

• This decision effectively blocks the consideration of environmental and public health studies, hampering regulatory capacities in these areas;

• The move is the culmination of a strategy devised by the cigarette companies to manipulate scientific standards to prevent the consideration of studies that could threaten corporate interests;

• This strategy quickly went beyond the circle of cigarette manufacturers to be mobilized by other controversial industries (energy, phytosanitary);

• In Europe, "impact assessments" follow a similar logic. By giving priority to the commercial paradigm, they handicap regulations on public health or the environment.

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has announced a new rule limiting the type of scientific studies that can be used to develop public policies. Officially motivated by a logic of transparency, this rule is accused of handicapping environmental and public health regulation. This decision is the culmination of a strategy put in place by the tobacco industry 25 years ago.[1].

The measure in question, called the "secret science rule," stipulates that scientific studies that make their data public will be given priority in regulatory decisions over those that contain confidential data. Andrew R. Wheeler, a former coal lobbyist[2] and EPA Administrator, welcomed the efforts undertaken in favor of the " transparency ", and the reduction of " misunderstandings of our regulatory decisions ".

Environmental and public health studies in the spotlight

According to organizations and medical experts, this rule effectively blocks the use of studies involving human subjects that include personal and confidential information. These studies play a crucial role in research intended to show how increasing levels of exposure to pollution, chemicals or other substances impact human health. This is precisely the type of study that the new EPA rule focuses on. Scientific studies on public health are the main ones concerned. By prioritizing scientific studies that publish their raw data over others, this rule creates a system of hierarchy. However, the availability of data is not a satisfactory criterion for testing the scientific soundness of a study, as Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, points out.

Contacted by GST, Professor Lisa Bero, from the Center for Bioethics at the University of Colorado, comments: " Transparency in science is good in principle. But transparency is only effective if it is applied fairly and ethically. Requiring transparency only for certain types of studies or when individual health information is protected (as the EPA does) opens a loophole for industries with vested interests to manipulate the data used for regulatory or policy decisions. »

“Let major polluters pollute public health”

As the New York Times points out, these studies have nevertheless served as " scientific basis for some of the most significant air and water quality regulations of the last fifty years " So, for example, if this new rule had already been in effect, the EPA would not have been able to demonstrate the impact of heavy metals on brain development, and thus propose regulations limiting mercury discharges from power plants. Similarly, the EPA would not have been able to advocate for more stringent standards for drinking water, the consumption of which has been linked to high rates of gastrointestinal illness. For opponents of the regulation, the primary goal seems to be to "Let major polluters trample on public health[3] ", Published Tuesday, January 5, the rule has already excluded a study showing that the use of the pesticide, chlorpyrifos, is linked to a delay in brain development in children. While critics of this new regulation hope for its rapid suspension and repeal by the next administration, a spokesperson for Joe Biden declined to comment on the situation.

A strategy developed 25 years ago by the RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company

In reality, this strategy was put in place 25 years ago by the tobacco industry, in order to slow down and obstruct the work of environmental regulators. In 1996, when the EPA decreed that secondhand smoke "has a serious and substantial impact on public health ", a lawyer for RJ Reynolds Tobacco Company suggests in a internal note a new strategy to combat regulatory risks[4]The idea is to set up "explicit procedural hurdles that the agency must follow in publishing scientific reports " In other words, instead of being interested in the " scientific substance ", it is about questioning the process by which the agency arrived at its conclusions. To do this, new criteria of scientificity are defined, such as transparency.

Manipulating scientific standards in favor of corporate interests

However, these new criteria of " scientificity " do not come from the world of research, but are instead the result of a perfectly orchestrated public relations campaign. The ultimate goal is not the improvement of scientific methods: it is simply to allow the manipulation of research standards and processes for the sole benefit of corporate interests.[5]. For this reason, the publication of internal tobacco industry documents has demonstrated that the industry has sought to minimise as much as possible its role in promoting these new criteria and the " good practices » scientists, particularly through the creation of front groups. Finally, this strategy aims to discredit scientific studies that threaten the interests of cigarette manufacturers, accused of being "junk science" (" trash science "). Behind the creation of an artificial scientific controversy, it is the very possibility of effective regulation that is targeted.

Requiring the publication of all the raw data from a study also has another benefit. Here, it allows cigarette manufacturers, by having access to it, to conduct an internal study and propose results different from those of the initial study. Alternative conclusions to the same raw database thus aim to challenge the validity of a study, deemed controversial and therefore insufficient to give rise to regulation. In 2003, Enstrom and Kabat, two researchers funded by the tobacco industry, were able to access the data from a study conducted by the American Cancer Society. By mobilizing a subset of the available raw data, the study was able to conclude that the link between smoking, lung cancer and coronary heart disease was considerably weaker than what could have been announced previously.[6].

A pioneering strategy by cigarette companies to slow down regulation

While the tobacco industry was unable to change the EPA's scientific review process in 1996, it quickly realized that this strategy could attract the interest of different industry sectors. Indeed, in a internal document, Philip Morris emphasizes the character of “ remarkably similar ", between the issue of passive smoking and that of a new regulation then under discussion on air pollution. Thus, in 1997, the EPA decided to limit the emission of polluting air particles, associated with increased mortality, according to a study conducted by Harvard University. Quickly, Citizens for a Sound Economy, a front group for Koch Industries (oil), accused the EPA of concealing the data from the study. Thus, the tobacco industry played a pioneering role, seeking to build coalitions of interests with industries around this strategy. In another internal document, Philip Morris maps out a number of stakeholders who could potentially support or oppose the promotion of these new standards, across a wide range of industries (food, health, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, transport, energy, insurance, waste treatment)[7]. A internal review Contacts with industry representatives who share Philip Morris' concerns indicate that their response is "generally positive."

Professor Lisa Bero summarizes : “It is well known that the tobacco industry and other industry actors have manipulated the design, conduct, and publication of research for decades. However, these companies have also attempted to manipulate the standards for evaluating science, thereby limiting the evidence that can be used for health policy. The new transparency rule is a continuation of this strategy, as it results in limiting the use of available human epidemiological data for regulatory decisions.”

In Europe, “impact assessments” undermine regulation

These lobbying techniques are not limited to the United States. In the European Union, the tobacco industry, particularly through British American Tobacco (BAT), has been promoting Business Impact Assessment (BIA) since the 1990s. This involves assessing the economic risks and opportunities of a policy through a cost/benefit calculation before implementing it. At first glance, BIA appears to be a tool for improving and streamlining the policies implemented. In reality, as shown by a study conducted by Anna B. Gilmore[8], a specialist in tobacco control, the systematization of the use of such a tool is not neutral. Indeed, the BIA gives priority to the economic paradigm, including for policies concerning the social, health or environmental sectors. Therefore, by evaluating public health policies in terms of their commercial impact, the opportunity of these policies appears less obvious. Then, such a provision makes it possible to facilitate the participation of companies in discussions on the policies envisaged, considered as stakeholders. Finally, the BIA thus makes it possible to provide companies with a tool for contesting policies that go against their interests. In fact, impact assessment has been instrumentalized by the tobacco industry, then by the chemical sector, as a tool to delay, weaken or prevent public health policies.

[1] New York Times, A Plan Made to Shield Big Tobacco From Facts Is Now EPA Policy, 04/01/2021, (accessed 05/01/2021)

[2] Eco Watch, EPA to Adopt Big Tobacco's 'Secret Science' Rule, 05/01/2021, (accessed the same day)

[3] The Guardian, Trump administration pollution rule strikes final blow against environment, 05/01/2021, (accessed the same day)

[4] The Nation, Trump's EPA is promoting a conspiracy theory created by big tobacco

22/11/2019, (accessed 05/01/2021)

[5] Elisa K. Ong and Stanton A. Glantz, 2001:

Constructing “Sound Science” and “Good Epidemiology”: Tobacco, Lawyers, and Public Relations Firms

American Journal of Public Health 91, 1749_1757, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1749

[6] Thun Michael J. More misleading science from the tobacco industry BMJ 2003; 327:E237

[7] Annamaria Baba, Daniel M. Cook, Thomas O. McGarity, and Lisa A. Bero, 2005:

Legislating “Sound Science”: The Role of the Tobacco Industry

American Journal of Public Health 95, S20_S27, https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.050963

[8] Smith KE, Fooks G, Collin J, et al

Is the increasing policy use of Impact Assessment in Europe likely to undermine efforts to achieve healthy public policy?

Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health 2010;64:478-487.