By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump administration’s plan to overturn hundreds of state-level bans on toxic chemicals, including PFAS, would significantly increase public exposure to substances linked to various health problems. This is achieved by altering the EPA’s chemical risk evaluation process, effectively preempting state laws and potentially negating federal prohibitions like the upcoming asbestos ban. The revised evaluation method focuses on individual chemical uses rather than the overall risk, allowing manufacturers to claim minimal risk due to low concentrations in individual products, despite significant cumulative exposure. Opponents argue this undermines state efforts to protect public health and could severely hamper the progress made in reducing exposure to these dangerous chemicals.
Read the original article here
Trump officials are quietly working to overturn bans on toxic “forever chemicals,” specifically PFAS. This action, cloaked in bureaucratic procedure, is essentially a wholesale deregulation effort, prioritizing business interests over public health.
The strategy employed is deceptively simple, yet profoundly impactful. Instead of assessing the overall risk of these chemicals, the administration plans to evaluate each specific use of a PFAS chemical individually. This means that a chemical deemed hazardous in large quantities might be declared “safe” in a particular product because the amount present is deemed below a certain threshold of “unreasonable risk.” This approach conveniently ignores the cumulative effect of exposure to multiple sources of these chemicals over time. The daily accumulation of various toxic substances from numerous products creates a significant long-term health risk, an aspect often overlooked in this narrowly focused evaluation method.
This tactic, while appearing technically sound, is designed to circumvent existing state-level bans on PFAS. Once the EPA declares a chemical “safe” for a particular application, states lose their authority to regulate it further. This effectively eliminates much of the consumer and environmental protection that these state-level bans were designed to provide. The rationale behind this action seems to be solely about boosting business profits.
The implications of this move are deeply concerning. PFAS, commonly known as “forever chemicals,” persist in the environment and accumulate in the human body, posing significant health risks, including cancer and developmental problems. This blatant disregard for public well-being is alarming, especially given the existing scientific consensus on the dangers of these chemicals. The administration’s attempt to minimize or ignore these established risks is nothing short of a public health crisis waiting to happen.
Ironically, while the administration is promoting this deregulation, the market itself is already pushing for safer alternatives. Many companies are proactively phasing out PFAS in their products due to market demand and growing consumer awareness of the health risks associated with these chemicals. This reveals a disconnect between the administration’s actions and the prevailing market trends and public opinion, showcasing a profound disregard for the well-being of citizens. It should not fall to market forces alone to correct this fundamental public health problem; it’s the EPA’s very mandate to regulate hazardous materials.
The timeline for implementing these changes will be extended, taking years to fully unfold. While the drawn-out process may give some breathing room and allow companies to transition away from PFAS at their own pace, the underlying intention remains troubling. The initiative signifies a dangerous precedent: a government actively hindering the protection of public health and undermining the regulatory authority of individual states. This ultimately places citizens at an elevated risk of exposure to dangerous chemicals.
This situation reflects a larger trend, where the administration seems to be actively targeting public health in various other ways. The irony of simultaneously pushing to remove Red Dye #40 from food while actively promoting the use of PFAS is striking. Such contradictory actions highlight an underlying disregard for consistent and logical public health policies. This blatant contradiction, along with the quiet and insidious nature of the proposed changes, points to an agenda prioritizing corporate interests over the well-being of the American people.
The repercussions of this decision extend beyond immediate health concerns. It could significantly impact the ability of states to protect their own citizens from environmental hazards, weakening local control over critical public health issues. This also has the potential to damage America’s image globally, affecting trade relationships as international partners might hesitate to import goods containing chemicals banned elsewhere.
Ultimately, the quiet reversal of PFAS bans is a critical issue that demands attention and action. While market forces and time may mitigate some of the negative impacts, the underlying decision reveals a fundamental disregard for public health and environmental protection. The administration’s actions, cloaked in technicalities and implemented incrementally, constitute a significant threat to the well-being of the American population.