The Environmental Protection Agency is receiving a host of "thumbs-down" from a panel of scientific advisers who say the Agency's new asbestos regulations are not beneficial.  Over 20 scientists have voiced their disapproval at the EPA's decision to defy years of research and declare asbestos less harmful than it is known to be.

Specifically, the EPA is revising how asbestos is classified and how its toxicity is measured.  In doing so, the EPA has claimed that a common type of asbestos--chrysotile--isn't dangerous and does not cause mesothelioma.  Instead of honoring decades of what is considered solid and substantiated research, the EPA has decided to consider only a few minor reports that minimize the risk of chrysotile.  In Washington, Senator Patty Murray is enraged.  She has long fought for anti-asbestos legislation and has spent years seeking relief for mesothelioma victims.  "I'd like the political appointees at the EPA to look into the eyes of a mesothelioma patient and say that asbestos isn't dangerous. It appears that this administration is once again putting politics before public health," she said.

Many mesothelioma advocates suspect that the EPA's sudden change in regulation was a result of political administrators' efforts to appease the automotive, construction, and mining industries who have faced costly lawsuits from employees who developed mesothelioma and asbestosis.  Representatives for the employers believe that the change in EPA classifications will make it more difficult for asbestos victims to receive compensation because they are more likely to convince juries that chrysotile is not dangerous.

Only one scientist supported the change in EPA regulations--Suresh Moolgavkar, an epidemiologist hired by W.R. Grace.  As you know from the updates in this blog, W.R. Grace is the company nearly entirely responsible for the mesothelioma epidemic that struck Libby, Montana.  But even Moolgavkar, employed by asbestos mogul Grace, criticized the EPA on its weak data and lack of research supporting its new system.

Dr. Michael Silverstein, a University of Washington clinical professor and occupational health specialist, submitted a 29-page report signed by 87 of the nation's leading public health authorities strongly questioning the EPA's efforts to change the risk assessment methods.  He said, "We knew plenty about asbestos. We didn't need more investigations. We didn't need more policy. What we did need was to stop exposure and stop the use of it." He added that the latest effort by the EPA "just came out of nowhere and is one of a number of questionable things being rushed through at the end of this administration."

But even with the disapproval of leading healthcare specialists, the EPA can enact its new regulations.  The Agency has the ability to operate independently of its advisers and can therefore ignore the suggestions, even the pleas, of its scientific board.  Senator Murray said that the current political administration has failed to improve American working conditions, and "now, in its waning days, it appears that they are actually trying to increase barriers to workplace safety."

For more information, click here.