The Trump administration is quietly advancing a plan that could cancel hundreds of bans on toxic chemicals used in everyday consumer products. These bans, mostly at the state level, restrict substances like PFAS, mercury, bisphenol, and phthalates in items such as cookware, food packaging, cosmetics, toys, and clothing.
EPA weakens state chemical protections
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Trump is changing how it conducts chemical risk evaluations. This change would allow the agency to pre-empt state laws that currently offer one of the few effective barriers against toxic substances in consumer goods. If the plan succeeds, the public could face greater exposure to chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, liver disease, reproductive damage, and birth defects.
An EPA employee, who requested anonymity out of fear of retaliation, said, “This will increase health risks to consumers by exposing them to toxic chemicals. It also allows the market for toxic chemicals to continue, because it maintains the financial incentive for them to be made for all these consumer products.”
The EPA plans to judge chemicals based on each intended use rather than treating the entire substance as harmful if even one use proves risky. For instance, formaldehyde has 63 known uses. Under the proposed rule, the EPA would evaluate each use separately and likely find that most of them don’t pose an “unreasonable risk.”
The same chemical could stay legal in consumer products even if some uses are clearly harmful. The EPA employee added, “They are going to exclude a huge number of consumer products from being considered for risk management.”
Biden EPA expanded chemical oversight
During the Biden administration, the EPA had adopted a broader approach. It declared that if any specific use of a chemical—like in clothing or food packaging—posed a health risk, the entire chemical should be subject to restrictions. That standard gave states the power to regulate more aggressively.
Industry groups have lobbied for the Trump approach for years. In 2016, they helped push a law that says if the EPA finds a chemical doesn’t pose an “unreasonable risk,” states cannot regulate it further. That provision now stands as the foundation of the Trump EPA’s current plan.
Public health advocates say states stepped in only because the federal government failed to act. States like Maine, California, and Washington passed their own laws to reduce exposure to toxic substances. Maine banned PFAS for all non-essential uses.
California and Colorado prohibited PFAS in clothing. Washington restricted lead in cookware. Nevada banned flame retardants in toys. Massachusetts and Connecticut banned PFAS in firefighter gear after firefighters linked high cancer rates to chemical exposure.
“People don’t want toxic chemicals in their homes,” said Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States. “Firefighters don’t want to be exposed to PFAS in firefighting foam. The states are on the front lines and they’ve been stepping up because communities want these laws.”
These laws don’t just protect people—they also put pressure on companies. PFAS bans in multiple states have forced manufacturers to rethink their product lines. “When California bans PFAS in clothing, it doesn’t make sense for companies to make two separate product lines,” said Doll. Facing this pressure, chemical giant 3M announced it would stop making PFAS altogether.
Trump plan threatens chemical safety laws
The Trump plan could also unravel California’s Proposition 65 law, a key regulation that forces companies to warn consumers about toxic exposures. It could weaken the recently announced federal ban on asbestos and block future efforts to limit other harmful chemicals.
The EPA employee explained the flaw in judging chemicals by single uses. “An individual television may contain a small amount of PFAS, but when you produce 50 million televisions, it adds up—especially for the environment or for workers producing them.”
The change will not happen overnight. The EPA has to go through each chemical one by one, and the process for each could take years. In the meantime, more states are likely to pass new restrictions, and public pressure will keep mounting on manufacturers.
Sarah Doll remains hopeful. “The market is moving, adapting and innovating,” she said. “In three years it will to great effect have already shifted. It’s a potential threat, but I don’t think it’s going to have a chilling effect on states responding to demands from communities on the ground who are saying, ‘We are dealing with this challenge.’”
Support us to keep independent environmental journalism alive in India.
Keep Reading
‘Forever Chemicals’ found in all the world’s toilet paper
Trump shuts down staff helping families pay heating bills
Full list of words banned by Trump, including ‘Climate Change’
Oil companies seek Trump’s help to fight climate lawsuits & regulations
Follow Ground Report on X, Instagram and Facebook for environmental and underreported stories from the margins. Give us feedback on our email id greport2018@gmail.com.
Don’t forget to Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, Join our community on WhatsApp, and Follow our YouTube Channel
