New Shitstain Rule Will Cut Safety Reviews For Asbestos, Dioxin, Formaldehyde; States To Lose Authority To Restrict Them
A new rule proposed by the Trump administration would dramatically weaken safety reviews for some of the nation’s most toxic chemicals that are already on the market, public health advocates and an EPA employee warn. Many of the chemicals that would receive less scrutiny are among the nation’s most dangerous substances, including PFAS, formaldehyde, asbestos and dioxins. Each poses serious health risks in consumer goods, or for workers handling the substances, advocates say.
If implemented, the new rule would shorten the time it takes to review chemicals, and alter the methodology used to assess their dangers. It would also prohibit states from banning or restricting dangerous chemicals, and could invalidate hundreds of state-level protections. “This is a gift to industry wrapped on golden wrapping paper with a big bow on it,” said Kyla Bennett, a former EPA scientist now with the Public Employees For Environmental Responsibility non-profit.
EDIT
The new rule proposes to eliminate review of some routes of exposure to a chemical from scrutiny. The EPA now puts in place restrictions if it can be “reasonably foreseen” that the public or workers may be exposed to toxic substances in the air, water, orally or dermally. The EPA employee said the Trump administration probably plans to exploit the gray area in that language – it seems poised to change the rule so the agency reasonably foresees fewer exposure routes. The EPA is also planning to create what Bennett called a “giant loophole” by not restricting the use of some dangerous chemicals as long as those who work with the substances use proper personal protective gear.
The EPA employee said voluminous research shows that workers often choose not to wear the gear, or fail to use it properly. Moreover, if the agency finds there is no risk to workers because it assumes proper use of protective equipment, then it cannot put in place enforceable personal protection equipment requirements. The employee said this “circular argument” increases the likelihood that gear will not be used in situations in which workers are at risk. “What the EPA is doing in this rule is saying, ‘Trust industry – they’ll protect their workers,’” Bennett said. “Since when does industry protect their workers?”
EDIT
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/21/trump-epa-toxic-chemicals
= new reply since forum marked as read
