Fact check: Who are the main proponents of bringing back asbestos?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the analyses, the main proponents of bringing back asbestos fall into three distinct categories:

Political Leadership:

• The Trump administration is identified as the primary governmental proponent, with Trump having previously stated that asbestos is "100 percent safe, once applied" in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback ^[1]. The administration is actively reconsidering the Biden administration's ban on chrysotile asbestos through the EPA ^{[2] [1]}.

Industry Lobbying Groups:

• The American Chemistry Council and US Chamber of Commerce are working to undermine asbestos regulations and halt its ban ^{[3] [4]}
• The National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association (NSSGA) from the construction industry lobby has actively blocked bills to ban asbestos ^[5]

Scientific and Corporate Supporters:

• Dennis Paustenbach, chief scientist of toxicology and risk exposure for TRC Companies, argues that "chrysotile asbestos does not pose the magnitude of risk as the amphibole asbestos" and that a ban is unnecessary ^[1]
• Uralasbest, one of the world's largest asbestos producers, showed support for Trump by putting his face on their products in 2018 ^[1]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several important contextual elements not addressed in the original question:

Financial Motivations:

• Asbestos producers like Uralasbest would benefit financially from reversing bans, as they could resume or expand sales to the US market ^[1]
• Construction industry companies represented by NSSGA would benefit from continued access to cheaper asbestos-containing materials ^[5]
• Chemical companies within the American Chemistry Council would profit from reduced regulatory oversight and compliance costs ^{[3] [4]}

Regulatory Timeline:

• The push to bring back asbestos represents a reversal of recent progress, as the Biden administration had successfully banned chrysotile asbestos, which the Trump administration now seeks to reconsider ^[2]

International Connections:

• There are foreign economic interests at play, with Russian asbestos producer Uralasbest actively supporting pro-asbestos American political figures ^[1]

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself appears neutral and factual in its framing, simply asking for identification of proponents rather than making claims. However, the question's framing as "bringing back" asbestos could be seen as:

Potentially Misleading Framing:

• The phrase "bringing back" might imply asbestos was completely banned previously, when in fact chrysotile asbestos was only recently banned under the Biden administration and the Trump administration is reconsidering this specific ban ^[2]

Missing Health Context:

• The question doesn't acknowledge the established health risks that make asbestos controversial, which could lead to incomplete understanding of why this issue generates significant opposition

Scope Limitations:

• The question focuses on "main proponents" but doesn't distinguish between different types of asbestos (chrysotile vs. amphibole), which the analyses show is a key distinction used by supporters to justify their positions ^[1]