The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently took actions allowing for continued or even expanded use of asbestos and chlorpyrifos--two hazardous substances that are strictly prohibited for use in numerous countries around the world. Many have accused the Trump Administration's EPA of going too far in rolling back federal regulations of these toxic substances, which are known to pose substantial threats to public health and the environment. The EPA's actions, which appear to have been influenced by private special interests, are emblematic of a growing inability for the federal government to reliably protect the public from highly hazardous chemicals. This Article describes the existing federal regulatory structure governing toxic substances and how that structure has recently devolved in potentially dangerous ways. The Article then uses basic public choice theory and behavioral economics principles to highlight how political rent-seeking and myopic behavior are contributing to these challenges. Ultimately, this Article describes specific policy strategies that could fortify federal restrictions on toxic substances and better insulate them against shortsighted political influence. Making it more difficult for a single presidential administration to significantly loosen restrictions on these types of substances would help to ensure that these important laws continue to adequately protect Americans' health and safety far into the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Vermont Journal of Environmental Law is the property of Vermont Journal of Environmental Law and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
