By Linda Reinstein, co-founder and CEO, Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization and Alex Formuzis, VP Strategic Campaigns, EWG Action Fund
An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) decision on which 10 chemicals it will prioritize reviewing under the recently overhauled Toxic Substances Control Act is expected by the end of this year.
One chemical under consideration: asbestos.
The question on many minds, as we near the 25th anniversary of a court decision that struck down most of an EPA rule banning asbestos use, is what will the EPA do now that it finally has the power to act under the new law?
Those who are watching these deliberations closely believe asbestos will make the list, but the EPA could still bend to the will of the chemical industry and its lobbyists.
This year, Congress finally passed legislation to overhaul the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which President Obama signed into law. Under the new Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, named after the late New Jersey senator who spearheaded the push to modernize TSCA, the EPA finally possesses the authority to make the use and importation of asbestos illegal.
Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., the ranking member of the Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee, who took on the issue after Lautenberg’s death, has fought hard to have asbestos top the list of chemicals for the EPA’s review under the new law. Boxer recently introduced the Alan Reinstein Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2016, which would expedite the ban of asbestos by amending the new TSCA law, requiring the EPA to prohibit all uses, distribution and disposal of asbestos within 18 months of the bill becoming law.
But asbestos was supposed to have been banned more than two decades ago.
In the summer of 1989, George H.W. Bush’s administration announced plans to finally ban the notorious carcinogen asbestos, which is responsible for more than 107,000 deaths worldwide each year, according to the World Health Organization.
The EPA, using the authority it believed it had under the old version of TSCA, issued a rule to “prohibit, at staged intervals, the future manufacture, importation, processing, and distribution in commerce of asbestos in almost all products,” on July 12 of the same year. The agency stated that asbestos exposure presented “unreasonable risks” to human health.
The federal government was poised to ban one of the most lethal and widely used materials that industries had relied on for decades.
“Asbestos is a human carcinogen and one of the most hazardous substances to which humans are exposed,” the EPA wrote in the rule.
This action on behalf of public health, of course, did not sit well with the asbestos industry and the downstream manufacturers that used the deadly mineral.
The industry went to court to overturn the ban, claiming that it was too costly and that alternatives were neither safer nor more effective than asbestos. Twenty-five years ago today, on Oct. 25, 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit threw out most parts of the EPA’s rule. The court acknowledged that asbestos exposure in any amount caused cancer, but said the agency failed to prove that a ban was the “least burdensome alternative” for controlling the public’s exposure.
This disastrous decision not only overturned the EPA’s ban, but also established a precedent that has made it almost impossible for the agency to ban any dangerous chemical. President George H.W. Bush’s administration chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision. Even though new evidence of asbestos’ hazards continues to crop up, the EPA’s hands have largely remained tied – until now.
The risks of a federal court rolling back a ban on asbestos this time around are considered unlikely under the new, more robust chemical law. So, the fate of asbestos, and whether it remains legal and continues to put Americans at risk, is now largely within the EPA’s power.
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
It's Another Trump-Biden Showdown — And We Need Your Help
The Future Of Democracy Is At Stake
Our 2024 Coverage Needs You
Your Loyalty Means The World To Us
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
The 2024 election is heating up, and women's rights, health care, voting rights, and the very future of democracy are all at stake. Donald Trump will face Joe Biden in the most consequential vote of our time. And HuffPost will be there, covering every twist and turn. America's future hangs in the balance. Would you consider contributing to support our journalism and keep it free for all during this critical season?
HuffPost believes news should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their ability to pay for it. We rely on readers like you to help fund our work. Any contribution you can make — even as little as $2 — goes directly toward supporting the impactful journalism that we will continue to produce this year. Thank you for being part of our story.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
It's official: Donald Trump will face Joe Biden this fall in the presidential election. As we face the most consequential presidential election of our time, HuffPost is committed to bringing you up-to-date, accurate news about the 2024 race. While other outlets have retreated behind paywalls, you can trust our news will stay free.
But we can't do it without your help. Reader funding is one of the key ways we support our newsroom. Would you consider making a donation to help fund our news during this critical time? Your contributions are vital to supporting a free press.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our journalism free and accessible to all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
As Americans head to the polls in 2024, the very future of our country is at stake. At HuffPost, we believe that a free press is critical to creating well-informed voters. That's why our journalism is free for everyone, even though other newsrooms retreat behind expensive paywalls.
Our journalists will continue to cover the twists and turns during this historic presidential election. With your help, we'll bring you hard-hitting investigations, well-researched analysis and timely takes you can't find elsewhere. Reporting in this current political climate is a responsibility we do not take lightly, and we thank you for your support.
Contribute as little as $2 to keep our news free for all.
Can't afford to donate? Support HuffPost by creating a free account and log in while you read.
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. Would you consider becoming a regular HuffPost contributor?
Dear HuffPost Reader
Thank you for your past contribution to HuffPost. We are sincerely grateful for readers like you who help us ensure that we can keep our journalism free for everyone.
The stakes are high this year, and our 2024 coverage could use continued support. If circumstances have changed since you last contributed, we hope you'll consider contributing to HuffPost once more.
Support HuffPostAlready contributed? Log in to hide these messages.