Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency was preparing to greenlight the first ever fish farm in federal waters, one that would supply a fish popular in Cajun and Creole restaurants. But the agency had a novel requirement.<\/p>\n
It wanted to require the company, Ocean Era, to monitor the farm for microplastics, the tiny particles that have become a rising environmental and health concern<\/a>.<\/p>\n However, some top E.P.A. officials balked. They said that mandating any company to track microplastics could set a cumbersome precedent for other industries, according to interviews and documents examined by The New York Times. So the agency ordered the requirement struck from the permit, and when an E.P.A. official filed a memo laying out his objections to that, the agency fired him.<\/p>\n The Trump administration, as part of its \u201cMake America Healthy Again\u201d agenda, has vowed to tackle<\/a> microplastics pollution, which can get into the bloodstream and affect the immune system, disrupt hormone regulation and cause chronic inflammation. But the firing of an E.P.A. official over the fish farm permit highlights a collision between the administration\u2019s health pledges and its efforts to lessen regulatory burdens on industries.<\/p>\n The fired employee, Kip Tyler, who was an environmental engineer at E.P.A., has filed an appeal with the Merit Systems Protection Board, which protects federal workers from unfair firings. He alleges harassment and discrimination and says that his managers\u2019 orders to remove the microplastics monitoring requirement were \u201cunscientific, politically motivated, unethical, an abuse of authority.\u201d<\/p>\n Mr. Tyler also alleges that the E.P.A. fired him by falsely claiming that he had intentionally tried to embarrass the agency with his memo. Mr. Tyler said in his appeal that the agency had made his memo public, but then tried to blame him for doing so.<\/p>\n It would be \u201chighly inappropriate for agencies to suppress any scientific gathering data in order to protect industries from regulation,\u201d said Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota Law School who served as President George W. Bush\u2019s chief ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007. If Mr. Tyler\u2019s claims held true, he said, it would be \u201ca very troubling development, not just in terms of the politicization of science, which is very dangerous, but also for the protection of the civil service.\u201d<\/p>\n This month the E.P.A. issued an updated permit<\/a> for the fish farm without a microplastics monitoring requirement. Environmental groups had challenged the permit, saying it would degrade the marine environment. To bolster their argument, they cited Mr. Tyler\u2019s memo.<\/p>\n Brigit Hirsch, the E.P.A. press secretary, said the agency was \u201cupholding the best scientific standards\u201d and called Mr. Tyler\u2019s claims otherwise \u201cunfounded.\u201d She said the agency \u201ccontinues to combat microplastics contamination with historic action to ensure safe water for every American.\u201d<\/p>\n Lobby groups in the chemical industry have long opposed regulating microplastics.<\/p>\n Kimberly Wise White, vice president of regulatory and scientific affairs at the American Chemistry Council, said in a statement that microplastics differed fundamentally from other contaminants because they varied in size, shape and other characteristics, making the tiny debris more difficult to identify and quantify. That made trying to include microplastics in permitting requirements premature, she said.<\/p>\n Microplastics, which are typically produced from wear and tear on larger plastic items, have been found in the snowy peaks of the Antarctic, the depths of the Mariana Trench<\/a> and in the bloodstreams of human and animals.<\/p>\n While scientists are just starting to explore the health effects of microplastics in humans, animal research suggests they can harm reproduction and may increase the risk for lung and colon cancer. The fishing industry is thought to be a major source<\/a>.<\/p>\n Microplastics aren\u2019t regulated or well tracked. \u201cThere\u2019s limited data, particularly from real world cases\u201d like a fish farm, said Aron Stubbins, a professor in marine and environmental sciences at Northeastern University in Boston who studies the global distribution of microplastics in the ocean.<\/p>\n In April, the E.P.A. and the Department of Health and Human Services said they were joining forces to curb levels of microplastics<\/a>, along with pharmaceuticals, in the environment. The E.P.A. proposed adding microplastics and pharmaceuticals to a list of priority pollutants, a move that would unlock more federal research into the prevalence of plastic debris, how it harms human health and how it can be cleaned up.<\/p>\n The federal government would \u201cact on the evidence regarding microplastics,\u201d Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the Health Secretary, said in announcing the effort. \u201cWe\u2019re not going to speculate, we\u2019re going to measure.\u201d<\/p>\n The E.P.A.\u2019s handling of the fish farm permit followed a different path.<\/p>\n