ATRA Files Comments with EPA, Questions Credibility of Asbestos Risk Assessment Coalition

Press Releases |

ATRA joined others in voicing objection to the EPA’s inclusion of certain experts in its evaluation of asbestos risk.


ATRA joined the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others in filing comments this week with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, voicing objection to the EPA’s inclusion of certain experts on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC) and TSCA SACC Ad Hoc Peer Reviewers for the March 2020 Draft Risk Evaluation for Asbestos.

The EPA opted to include individuals on these committees who also serve as paid experts for asbestos plaintiffs’ law firms, spouting opinions which have routinely been rejected by courts as not having a scientific basis. The report will negatively impact asbestos personal injury trials by providing a platform for plaintiff’s attorneys and experts to put forth the “any exposure theory.” 

We are disappointed the EPA chose to include a number of highly compensated experts for plaintiffs in asbestos personal injury cases and that they have excluded any testifying experts with differing opinions from both the SACC and Ad Hoc Peer Reviewers. 

Given that this process has the potential to impact the risk evaluation in asbestos litigation, the reviewers ought to be credible, fair, and balanced.

Our full comments filed with the EPA may be read here.


Learn more about the problems surrounding scientific evidence in the courts and ATRA’s position here.

Latest News

View all news

Climate Case Is Ninth Circuit’s Golden Opportunity on Nuisance Suits

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has an opportunity to redirect policy and push back on activist attorneys’ attempts to improperly expand public nuisance law. With Covid-19 public nuisance lawsuits coming, Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, discusses the importance of the climate change lawsuit.