BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 35% saturation with 194 hits. Analysis detected 1,589 faulty-reasoning hits from 554 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.3% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,568 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.80% of the article peer group.

Today, 250 organizations and groups from across the country urge leaders of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to reject industry-led efforts to weaken the Toxic Substances Control Act, America’s primary chemical safety law, and encourage Congress to hear from the people, workers, and communities whose health would be most affected. 
In the letter sent to EPW Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) and to Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), organizations representing public health professionals, scientists, consumer advocates, environmental justice leaders, community organizations, environmental advocates, and impacted communities wrote that Congress has not yet publicly heard testimony in hearings from the people who would bear the greatest consequences of weakening the law. 
Those voices include veterans, workers, families, and frontline communities facing cancer, Parkinson's disease, and other illnesses linked to toxic chemical exposures, as well as states on the front lines of managing contamination, cleanup, and rising health costs. 
“Strong chemical safety reviews protect families from hazardous chemicals before they reach the market,” said Melanie Benesh , vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. 
“Weakening TSCA doesn't cut red tape. 
It makes it easier for toxic chemicals to end up in our homes, our drinking water, and our bodies,” Benesh said. 
The letter also highlights TSCA’s broad public health benefits since Congress overwhelmingly voted to modernize the law in 2016, including actions to address toxic chemicals such as asbestos , methylene chloride , trichloroethylene , perchloroethylene , carbon tetrachloride and other harmful substances found in homes, schools, workplaces, consumer products , drinking water and communities across the country. 
“We urge the Committee to ensure that any proposed legislation to revise TSCA receives full and careful review and input from all interested parties,” the letter states. 
“The vast majority of Americans across party lines support more protections from toxic chemical exposure and more accountability from corporate polluters. 
For an issue of this magnitude and importance, we urge you to not rush to mark up a bill that has not been seen by the public nor received a hearing with opportunity for testimony or comment from all interested stakeholders,” the organizations wrote . 
“Congress should not make changes to our nation's chemical safety law to placate the chemical industry," said Liz Hitchcock, federal policy director at Toxic-Free Future. "Americans need stronger protections from toxic chemicals, not weaker ones. 
Lawmakers must hear from the health professionals, veterans, workers, state leaders, and communities that would be most affected—not just the companies that profit from these chemicals.” 
The sign-on letter was organized by the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals , a national coalition of more than 85 organizations and networks united around one principle: put people’s health first. 
Together, Alliance members are working to defend TSCA against efforts to weaken it and preserve strong federal public health protections from toxic chemicals. 
About the Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals 
The Alliance for Health and Safe Chemicals is a national coalition of more than 85 organizations and networks united around the principle: put people’s health first. 
The Alliance fights for national protections to prevent harm from toxic chemicals that contribute to cancer, infertility, learning disabilities, and other health challenges. 
We work for justice and health for all, wherever you live, work, and play. 
Confirmation Bias
35%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
21.1%
Representativeness Heuristic
3.8%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
22.6%
Loss Aversion
8.1%
Status Quo Bias
4.9%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
2.5%
Pessimism Bias
3.8%
Negativity Bias
14.6%
Self-Serving Bias
6.3%
Fundamental Attribution Error
4.7%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
7.2%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
10.5%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
6.3%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
21.5%
False Dilemma
12.1%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
3.8%
Appeal to Emotion
22.4%
Begging the Question
5.1%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
7.9%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
8.1%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
6.7%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
11.4%
Biased Writer Voice
16.4%
Indoctrination
13.9%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
2%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
4.2%

554 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.