Many in the global clinical and research community reacted with horror to the June 18, 2025, news that the Trump administration was requesting that the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) should “reconsider” the country’s ban on chrysotile asbestos. This ban had been previously enacted under the Biden presidency in 2024. Arguing that the ban “went beyond what is necessary to eliminate the unreasonable risk and whether alternative measures—such as requiring permanent workplace protection measures—would eliminate the unreasonable risk”, the decision for a reassessment has been viewed by the scientific community with significant concern, and also scepticism regarding the motive.
Following clear evidence of the malignant and non-malignant consequences of asbestos exposure, a growing number of nations have instituted near total bans on the use of this mineral over the past 40 years. Initially, this ban included crocidolite (blue asbestos), but later also chrysotile (white asbestos), which compromised 95% of asbestos used in the twentieth century. Chrysotile is the sole serpentine form of asbestos with curled, pliable fibres which break down more readily than the long, needle-like fibres of blue asbestos and other amphibole types. Chrysotile has been erroneously suggested to be uniquely safe in its carcinogenic potential. Now largely the only type of asbestos still mined and utilised, its use has been hotly debated in both scientific and political circles.
Pro-asbestos lobby groups have aligned into a position fully supportive of the mining and use of so-called pure chrysotile and continue to fund the majority of research supportive of the ongoing use of this fibre. This position has relied upon two flawed arguments regarding mesotheliogenesis.
Firstly, the relative size of the fibre and its ability to split into shorter fibre lengths (<5 microns), has supported the bio-persistence theory. Proponents suggest decreased accumulation of chrysotile fibres and greater clearance from the lung parenchyma. Although superficially a compelling argument, analyses of lung and mesothelioma samples from workers exposed to chrysotile have repeatedly demonstrated the continuing presence of shorter fibres, with later analyses demonstrating chrysotile as the main fibre present.
Secondly, the amphibole hypothesis postulated that any evidence of pathogenicity stemmed purely from contamination of chrysotile samples with amphibole asbestos, including tremolite. This was initially suggested by evidence from Canada, where chrysotile asbestos was mined in large quantities and where a series of careful longitudinal studies had been conducted. However, many subsequent studies have confirmed that chrysotile is capable of initiating malignancy, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified chrysotile as a grade 1 carcinogen since 1987.
[Article continues at original source]Asbestos & Mesothelioma Information
Asbestos-Mesothelioma Case Evaluation
Free. Confidential. No Obligation.