Asbestos, a deadly substance notorious for causing a range of health complications including mesothelioma and various forms of cancer, has been progressively eliminated from use in the United States. However, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently revealed its plans to reflect on the last-standing prohibition on the usage of asbestos under the Biden administration. The agency voiced raising speculation about the regulation, calling it ‘overreaching’.
Tens of thousands of lives are extinguished every year due to asbestos-related complications. Despite this, the Biden administration’s blanket ban on chrysotile asbestos—an explicitly harmful form of the substance—has been put into question by the EPA. Rather hypocritically, this blanket ban was heralded as ‘a landmark in the combat against cancer’ by the very same administration.
The EPA has now disconcertingly decided to revisit this so-called ‘milestone’. Through a legally backed submission, they expressed their intentions to reevaluate the Biden administration’s stance on chrysotile asbestos’ usage over the next 30 months.
According to the Toxic Substances Control Act, the agency is mandated to both assess the perilousness of a chemical and consider the potential repercussions of restriction. Embarking upon this investigation now, the EPA implies that the ban in place might have been an excessive measure, suggesting that there may be ‘alternatives’ to complete prohibition.
Chrysotile asbestos can be found in several consumer products such as brake blocks, asbestos diaphragms, and sheet gaskets. It was officially outlawed under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was expanded in 2016. In this, the Biden-Harris administration seem to display a somewhat admirable, yet misguided zeal towards the cause.
When the ban was finalized, a mere eight facilities in the United States utilized asbestos diaphragms within the chlor-alkali sector. These factories produce essential chemicals like chlorine and sodium hydroxide, instrumental in water decontamination processes. These operations were given a half-decade to adapt.
Critics have criticized Biden’s government for its decision to reassess this ban, calling it an attempt to dilute prohibitions against this harmful carcinogen. However, isn’t it prudent to have a balanced discussion on all measures before rolling them out? Reexamining rules does not necessarily imply a grave misstep.
An executive director from the Environmental Protection Network—an innocuous not-for-profit outfit—has openly expressed discontent with the administration. They seem to believe that the government is apparently operating beyond its means, giving preference to polluters without due consideration for the health of American citizens.
The American Chemistry Council, on the other hand, appears to support the reassessment. They argue that any regulation must hinge upon a ‘risk-based approach’, in sync with the best available scientific evidence. Arguably, this is more a critique of Biden’s administration’s hasty decisions, devoid of proper science-based evaluation, than an endorsement of continued asbestos use.
Moreover, officials should acknowledge the detrimental effects of this potential rollback. Therefore, they should ensure that any ‘reconsideration’ of the policy will not compromise the well-being and health of Americans. It seems rather peculiar that the Biden administration, vocal about their fight against cancer, now seem hesitant about a proven carcinogen.
It’s necessary to deliver a fair judgement — both on health implications and industry requirements. Yet, the Biden administration’s shifting stance only indicates indecisiveness and a clear lack of leadership.
In the end, the future of this asbestos ban or its potential revision primarily lies with the EPA. It may be that the administration felt initially compelled to respond with extreme measures due to public pressure rather than adopting a more nuanced approach based on science.
Ultimately, whether the use of asbestos in certain industries will continue or be permanently discontinued remains uncertain under Joe Biden’s leadership, hinting at disorder and indecisiveness at play in the realms of public health and policymaking.