By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The EPA has finalized a ban on the cancer-causing chemicals Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Perchloroethylene (PCE) under the 2016 Toxic Substances Control Act. This action, aligned with President Biden’s Cancer Moonshot initiative, prohibits all uses of TCE and most consumer and commercial uses of PCE. Stringent worker protections will accompany any remaining industrial uses of these chemicals. The ban reflects the administration’s commitment to reducing cancer deaths and prioritizes safer alternatives where available.
Read the original article here
Joe Biden’s administration has taken a significant step toward improving public health by banning two extremely toxic, cancer-causing chemicals: Trichloroethylene (TCE) and Perchloroethylene (PCE). This move represents a major milestone in chemical safety regulations, aiming to protect citizens from the harmful effects of these substances.
The ban encompasses all uses of TCE, a powerful solvent known for its carcinogenic properties. For PCE, another widely used solvent in various industrial and consumer applications, the ban applies to many commercial and all consumer uses. This comprehensive approach demonstrates a commitment to reducing exposure to these dangerous chemicals.
While the ban represents a substantial win for public health, stringent worker protections are still mandated for any remaining uses of PCE, ensuring that those who may still have occupational exposure are adequately protected from the chemical’s harm. This careful balance reflects a practical approach, minimizing disruption while prioritizing worker safety.
The decision has, unsurprisingly, sparked debate. Some voices express concern that the ban may be short-lived, predicting its reversal should a different political administration take office. Others question the specific exceptions and grandfather clauses within the regulations, raising concerns about potential loopholes or preferential treatment for certain industries.
However, the administration’s clear commitment to phasing out these hazardous materials remains steadfast, suggesting this ban isn’t a temporary measure. The long-term implications for public health, through decreased exposure and a reduction in cancer risks, are significant and should be viewed as a crucial step in environmental protection.
Much of the opposition seems to stem from concerns about economic impact and perceived limitations on “freedom,” particularly from those opposed to government regulation. These arguments often overlook the devastating health consequences and long-term costs associated with exposure to these chemicals, both to individuals and to society as a whole. The cost of inaction, in terms of human health and healthcare expenses, far outweighs any temporary economic disruption caused by the ban.
Furthermore, the ban serves as a counterpoint to the rhetoric of deregulation often favored by certain political groups. Instead of prioritizing immediate economic gains over long-term health consequences, this action emphasizes the responsibility of government to protect its citizens from known dangers, even if it means challenging established industrial practices.
Ironically, this decisive action might inadvertently benefit the opposing party by taking the wind out of the sails of certain political figures who advocate for the elimination of various preservatives, dyes, and additives in food. It demonstrates the capacity of the current administration to effectively address public health concerns, potentially weakening the platform of those who claim current regulations are insufficient or misguided.
Concerns about the ban’s longevity are understandable given the cyclical nature of political priorities. However, the precedent set by this decision should not be underestimated. The increased awareness and heightened scrutiny surrounding the use of these cancer-causing chemicals are likely to affect future decisions, creating a more informed and cautious environment regarding the approval and regulation of industrial chemicals.
It’s also worth acknowledging the historical use of these solvents, particularly their prominent role in the dry cleaning industry and their use by the military to clean equipment. These historical uses showcase the pervasiveness of these chemicals and the long-term contamination issues they have created, highlighting the urgency for comprehensive remediation efforts.
The controversy surrounding this ban underscores the complex interplay between public health, economic interests, and political ideologies. While immediate economic impacts are a valid concern, they shouldn’t overshadow the long-term benefits of protecting the population from known carcinogens. The decision to ban these “extremely toxic” chemicals is a demonstrably important step toward securing a healthier future for all.