‘Sound Science’ at EPA?

Ag communicators need to dust off our talking points on that favorite term of ours, ‘sound science.’ What do we mean by it?

That question will come into focus increasingly in the time ahead, I believe, as EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin shifts the agency’s mission to affordable energy and, according to recent reports, ‘approving new chemicals.’ Review major media from mid April to early May 2025 and you’ll see that I mean.

When I started in Ag Communications, the first thing I learned was Ag’s chemical and biotech advances are based on sound science, as promulgated by the EPA. Along the same lines, I recall learning about the differences between peer-reviewed research and research that was not conducted according to the highest scientific standards—the kind of research championed by the EPA. I learned how easy it was to distort this sound science to fit a narrative fundamentally opposed to GMOs and crop protection.

In the years that followed, I invoked sound science in every talking point I wrote defending the EPA-approved tools of modern Ag. I wrote talking points for soybean checkoff farmer-leaders to use in the E.U., China, Argentina, Paraguay and on other trade missions urging overseas regulators to use sound science in their own systems. Be like the EPA, we implied, use sound science.

But what will the industry say now when media and other stakeholders question the actions of the agency? How can the EPA defend work that’s now conducted explicitly with the objective of approval? Where does sound science come in? What are the implications for the reputations of the companies expecting those approvals?

Those agribusinesses are well advised to start considering how they’ll manage these questions from stakeholders, customers, employees and/or media as the newly politicized EPA conducts its work. Already, questions about safety and benefits are flying from quarters not previously seen (Hello, MAHA Moms!), based on the same kind of lies and misinformation that have plagued our industry for years. How well is the EPA positioned as a credible champion of sound science now?

And what does that mean for the industry?