Forever Chemicals

Introduction

A Michigan public radio reporter shares an image of a state sign on social media, warning people not to eat fish caught in the Huron River due to high levels of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances). The chemicals, known as “forever chemicals” for how long they persist in the environment and the human body, have been associated with higher risks of some cancers, ulcerative colitis, high cholesterol and other health conditions. (Screenshot/Michigan Radio/Lester Graham)

Go to top

Overview

When psychologist Sandy Wynn-Stelt and her husband, Joel Stelt, moved into their rural Michigan home three decades ago, they liked living across the street from a 60-acre Christmas tree farm. But after Joel died from liver cancer in 2016, Wynn-Stelt learned that under those pretty pines lurked a toxic waste dump.

Dangerous chemicals used to produce waterproof Hush Puppies shoes had been buried decades earlier and had leached into the groundwater.

Tests showed that Wynn-Stelt's private well contained levels of the chemicals — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS — more than 1,000 times above what was recommended. PFAS also appeared in Wynn-Stelt's blood at levels 500 times higher than is typical. Several years later, Wynn-Stelt was diagnosed with thyroid cancer, which had spread to her lymph nodes.1

Wynn-Stelt, 63, does not know if her husband's cancer was caused by the chemical-laced water they drank for more than 20 years, although studies indicate an association between certain PFAS and liver and other cancers and health conditions, including thyroid disease. Wynn-Stelt and about 1,700 other local residents sued the shoe manufacturer and 3M, which supplied the PFAS-containing Scotchgard used in the shoes. They settled for $54 million last September.2

For decades, Sandy Wynn-Stelt and her husband used water from their private well, unaware that it had extremely high levels of PFAS. She does not know for sure if her husband's fatal liver cancer was caused by consuming the polluted water, but she is now an advocate for testing and regulating PFAS. (Courtesy Sandy Wynn-Stelt)

Wynn-Stelt, who has recovered from her cancer, now focuses on lobbying for regulation and testing of PFAS. “We have to fix this,” she says.

The PFAS classification includes about 12,000 chemicals, 600 of which are in commercial use. They resist heat, oil, grease, stains and water, which is why they are used to make nonstick pans, stain-resistant furniture, waterproof cosmetics, firefighting foam, takeout food containers, microwavable popcorn bags and other products, ranging from artificial turf to dental floss, pet food and ski wax. They also have a wide variety of industrial applications, including in medical devices and electronics.3

PFAS are called “forever chemicals” because they persist indefinitely in the environment. However, scientists are developing new technologies that may, in coming years, destroy them quickly and efficiently. (See Short Feature.)

But for the moment, forever chemicals are ubiquitous — not just in the United States, but worldwide. Besides groundwater, they are found in surface water (such as lakes, rivers and oceans), as well as in air, soil, dust and food. They also accumulate in the human body, where they can last for years: Nearly all Americans (97 percent to 99 percent) have PFAS in their bloodstreams. About 3,000 PFAS-contaminated locations have been identified in all 50 states and two territories, and experts say that about 200 million Americans may be drinking municipal water containing PFAS.4

Exposure to certain PFAS has been linked to increased risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancer, fertility problems, developmental delays, reduced immune system function (including reduced vaccine effectiveness), increased cholesterol and obesity, ulcerative colitis, high blood pressure during pregnancy, hormone system interference and liver and thyroid problems. Researchers are investigating other potential health issues, including ovarian and endometrial cancer, prostate cancer, thyroid cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma and childhood leukemia.5

Opposition to PFAS has been rising for decades, both in the United States and across the globe. For a variety of reasons, the U.S. government has not regulated PFAS, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on March 14 proposed allowable limits for the chemicals under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the first new standards issued under that law since the 1990s. The agency also plans this year to designate the two most-studied substances in the PFAS family — PFOA and PFOS — as hazardous substances under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, known as Superfund. In the absence of nationwide regulations, dozens of states have banned or limited PFAS, and more than two dozen states are considering additional restrictions this year. Five European countries have banned them, and the 27-member European Union is considering a coalition-wide ban.6

Long Description

“The European Union has been more aggressive going after PFAS than anybody else has,” says Betsy Southerland, a former director of the Office of Science and Technology in the EPA's Office of Water who volunteers for the Environmental Protection Network, a group of more than 550 EPA alumni who provide information to the public about environmental matters.

But PFAS contamination is not confined to Europe or to industrialized areas. It can be spread through the air, the soil, waterways, groundwater, the animal food chain and the use of products containing PFAS. It has been found on every continent and in more than 330 animal species. “It's worldwide,” says Southerland.7

Facing increased regulation and some $30 billion in lawsuit settlements, 3M has decided to stop producing PFAS by 2025, and other companies have been phasing PFAS out of their products.8

Regulators have focused their efforts on reducing exposure to two specific compounds in the PFAS family: PFOA (a nonstick ingredient in Teflon) and PFOS (a stain- and water-repellent used in Scotchgard). “Thousands of studies” have shown the dangers of those two substances, Southerland says. In fact, manufacturers — in an agreement with the EPA — voluntarily stopped producing PFOS in 2002 and PFOA by 2015.9

Activists gather outside a courthouse in Concord, N.H., in 2019, to protest a lawsuit by 3M and other companies challenging regulations to limit PFAS in drinking water. (AP Photo/Michael Casey)

However, due to their persistence in the environment, the two chemicals continue to cause problems. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, classified PFOA as a possible carcinogen in 2017, and in November will determine whether both chemicals should be reclassified as either “probably carcinogenic” or “definitely carcinogenic,” says Kyle Steenland, a professor of epidemiology at Emory University.10

Manufacturers have developed other chemicals to replace PFOA and PFOS, called GenX and PFBS, respectively, which they say are safe. But some studies have shown that these alternatives may also cause harm. Lab animals exposed to GenX chemicals experienced “the same constellation of effects you see with PFOA,” said Deborah Rice, a retired toxicologist who served as a senior risk assessor in the EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment, which examines how pollutants may affect human health and the environment. “There's no way you can call this a safe substitute.”11

Critics say chemical makers have known about the potential harms posed by PFAS since the early 1960s, based on internal company documents revealed in lawsuits over the past 20 years.12

The chemical industry denies that all PFAS are dangerous, saying that PFAS, when used properly, can safely be used to make essential products unmatched by PFAS-free alternatives. The manufacturers also say more regulation that is too broad could harm consumers, business and the economy.

“PFAS are vital to enabling our lives in the 21st century and are critical to the reliable and safe function of a broad range of products that are important for industry and consumers, such as cell phones, semiconductors, aircraft, solar panels and electric batteries, medical devices and life-saving drugs,” says Erich Shea, communications director for the American Chemistry Council's Performance Fluoropolymer Partnership, its PFAS divison.

Nevertheless, in October 2021, the Biden administration announced a three-year plan to combat PFAS pollution involving eight federal agencies. The EPA's PFAS Roadmap includes updating a toxicity assessment for a PFAS — known as PFBS — that the agency said had been “marked by error and improper, nonscientific influence” during the Trump administration. The agency will also develop regulations aimed at stopping the discharge of PFAS into waterways and wastewater systems. The EPA and the Defense Department will work to expand testing for PFAS in groundwater, soil and other locations, including on military bases. And the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will expand testing for PFAS in food.13

Using its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA in March proposed requiring levels of PFOA and PFOS no higher than four parts per trillion (ppt) in public water supplies, as well as varying levels for four other PFAS chemicals (GenX, PFBS, PFNA and PFHxS). EPA officials say the measure could “prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS-attributable illnesses.” However, the measure, if finalized, could cost water systems $772 million annually to comply, the EPA estimates. Some $9 billion in federal aid is available to help small and rural utilities meet these goals. The new regulation, which will be mandatory if approved, replaces an advisory recommendation issued last June. That level — which was nonbinding — limited PFOA and PFOS at near zero. The proposed levels are higher because of how difficult it is to measure quantities below four ppt, the EPA said.14

According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, those most at risk for PFAS exposure include chemical manufacturing workers, firefighters and ski-wax technicians.15 Firefighters can be exposed through firefighting foam or, some recent research suggests, their fireproof clothing.16

Firefighters spray foam on a plane that skidded off the runway in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, in 2018. While flame-retardant foam effectively controls jet fuel fires, it can expose firefighters to dangerous levels of these toxic chemicals. (AFP/Getty Images/Orlando Sierra)

A new documentary, Burned: Protecting the Protectors, examines the dangers from PFAS-containing protective gear. The International Association of Firefighters has retained lawyers to help fight for PFAS-free gear and to help members and families seeking compensation for illness linked to the chemicals.17

Thousands of people exposed to firefighting foam are part of a large, multidistrict lawsuit being heard in South Carolina, which consolidated more than 3,700 claims involving allegations of exposure to, or pollution from, PFAS-containing firefighting foam. The first case in this litigation goes to trial in May, says Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, a former EPA official and now a partner with Baker Botts LLC in Washington, D.C.18

The plaintiffs also include military service members and their families. More than 600,000 members have been exposed to PFAS in drinking water at 24 U.S. bases, according to a Department of Defense study and an analysis by the Environmental Working Group, an environmental health advocacy organization. The group said that 400 U.S. military installations in the United States and abroad are known to have PFAS-contaminated water supplies; another 300 have suspected contamination.19

Mark A. Favors, a critical care nurse in New York City and a veteran, is a plaintiff in the South Carolina suit. At least 16 of his family members who were exposed to PFAS-contaminated water on or near Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo., have been diagnosed with cancer, he says, and 10 of them have died. Five of those, including his father, had kidney cancer, which is associated with PFAS exposure.20 Three family members, including a 14-year-old, required kidney transplants. The cancer is not genetically linked, he says, because some of those afflicted were related only by marriage.

Favors says the military knew about PFAS dangers decades ago but continues to use the foam, without accountability. “Congress needs to do a comprehensive investigation,” says Favors. “They need to regulate PFAS. The only solution is a congressional solution. There's just no way that individuals can deal with this issue.”

As scientists, regulators, lawmakers and the public deal with the controversial and complicated problem of PFAS contamination, here are some key questions being debated:

Have the dangers from PFAS been exaggerated?

“Now We Need to Worry About Harmful ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Our Toilet Paper Too,” announced Time magazine in a March headline, describing new PFAS research about yet another place where PFAS can touch our lives — and our bodies.21

Trying to figure out how much to fear PFAS and how susceptible we are to their health effects can be tough and, as Time suggests, wearying. The average American must navigate:

• Government health websites that often downplay PFAS dangers or provide incomplete information, according to a recent study.

• Scientific language that may be confusing to laypeople.

• The difficulty scientists face in saying with certainty that a particular substance causes a specific condition in someone; instead, they can only point to increases in risks found in animals and long-term studies of people who have been exposed.22

Long Description

While chemical industry spokespeople and others have raised concerns that PFAS dangers may be overplayed by the media and environmental advocacy groups, many scientists disagree.

Alan Ducatman, a professor emeritus at the School of Public Health at Western Virginia University who helps communities seeking medical monitoring after PFAS exposure, has studied information about PFAS provided on state and federal health agency websites. He and his colleagues found that while such agencies must be careful not to induce unnecessary fear while providing accurate information, too often their messages “overemphasize uncertainty, dismissing legitimate reasons for concern in affected communities.” Evidence of health effects is stronger for some PFAS than for others, the researchers said, but too often uncertainty is emphasized for all outcomes. Such communications fail to address the needs of contaminated communities, they concluded, and the scientific use of terms with different connotations in common use can be confusing.23

For example, Ducatman says, describing a health outcome as “lacking sufficient evidence” may mean “more likely than not, but awaiting further evidence” to a scientist, but a layperson may interpret this as “unlikely.”

Ducatman says the mainstream press, which has been “mostly late to cover” the PFAS threat, still uses “very careful and often understated wording about causation,” possibly due to statements appearing in official sources. “Where I have seen exaggeration is in non-mainstream sites,” he says, with “examples in both directions.”

One organization that promotes the view that PFAS coverage has been overblown is the American Council on Science and Health, a group that accepts donations from chemical and other industries and often publishes pro-industry opinions.24 Freelance contributor Susan Goldhaber, a toxicologist, has written that PFAS is “a textbook example of when misinformation gets repeated enough times, it becomes mistaken for the truth.” She said studies of PFAS' harmful effects are not uniform in their findings and that “the evidence currently available is mixed.”25

Goldhaber, who says she does not have ties to the PFAS industry, argued that removing PFAS from firefighting foams and gear could expose firefighters to chemicals and situations that are riskier than the “miniscule risk” they face from PFAS. Goldhaber called for “a more balanced review of the data, which is not nearly as scary as the headlines would lead us to believe.”26

Officials at an elementary school in Stow, Mass., covered water fountains in plastic to prevent students from using them in 2019 after elevated levels of PFAS were found in the water supply. The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed limits on such chemicals in drinking water. (Getty Images/The Boston Globe/David L. Ryan)

Shea, the American Chemistry Council's director of product communications, acknowledges that PFOA and PFOS have been “associated with developmental effects and liver damage” in lab animals. But, he says, “there remains disagreement on the health effects of these chemistries” within the regulatory community.

Plus, he adds, the substitutes that have replaced PFOA and PFOS “have been thoroughly reviewed by regulators prior to introduction into commerce, are subject to ongoing review and are supported by a robust body of scientific health and safety data.”

Other experts say research indicates health risks from the replacement PFAS as well.27

The amount of PFOA and PFOS in Americans' bloodstreams has been declining steadily after manufacturers removed about 95 percent of those chemicals from the market by 2010.28 Since then, levels of some of the newer PFAS have risen slightly, says David A. Savitz, a professor of epidemiology at Brown University, but levels of most remain steady. Most people have “low-level background exposures,” he says, except for a “small number of people in locations with contaminated water supplies who have much higher levels.” Those locations are being identified and remediated, he says.

PFAS exposure “is not an immediate threat to health,” Savitz told The New York Times. “It's a subtle threat, so people have a hard time knowing what to make of it. We want to curtail exposure, but it is not an immediate disaster.”29

Alissa Cordner, the co-director of the PFAS Project Lab at Northeastern University, says potential harms from exposure to PFAS “are well documented by rigorous scientific studies and are reflected in regulatory assessments by multiple U.S. states that have developed health-protective drinking water guideline levels in the high single-digit or low double-digit parts-per-trillion.” While studies may have “mixed results,” she argues, “the preponderance of the evidence” shows that “PFAS pose a risk to human health and the environment.”

Rather than being exaggerated, she argues, the “harms are most certainly understated by manufacturers.”

Keith Vorst, an associate professor of food science and human nutrition at Iowa State University and director of the Polymer Food Protection Consortium, works with companies to help them switch to PFAS-free packaging. He says none of the 22 corporate executives he has spoken with think the dangers of PFAS exposure have been overblown.

“Not one!” he says. “Everyone knows we have to get this out.”

Should Congress enact a federal bill to regulate PFAS nationwide?

Numerous states have taken action against PFAS in the past few years, while businesses have cut back on the use of the chemicals — all without federal regulation.

The lack of federal regulation has spurred states to take matters into their own hands, says Dunn, the attorney and former EPA official. “When there's a gap at the federal level in terms of litigation, states step in and occupy the space.”

For example, since January, carpets or curtains containing PFAS are no longer allowed to be sold in Maine, and by 2030, no PFAS-containing product can be sold in the state, unless specifically exempted.30 The ban is a reaction to wastewater sludge the state sold to farmers in the early 1980s to use as fertilizer, which then was discovered to contain PFAS. The chemicals leaked into the groundwater, contaminating hundreds of drinking water wells and ruining farm products, such as milk produced by dairy farms. Cows with high levels of PFAS had to be killed.31

Long Description

Colorado also encountered PFAS contamination, largely through firefighting foam made with PFAS used for decades at military bases, airports and municipal fire stations. Residue from the foam leaked into groundwater and soil. Experts say the state may have the nation's highest level of firefighting foam contamination.32

Colorado's ban on PFAS in a wide variety of consumer products starts next year and will be fully phased in by 2027. “In Colorado, our water supply is precious, and even small amounts of PFAS have been linked to serious health problems,” said Colorado Rep. Lisa Cutter, who sponsored the bill. “We know there's a problem, and it is incumbent upon us to act.”33

States have the advantage of not being subject to the same rules as federal agencies, says Southerland, the former EPA official who now works with the Environmental Protection Network. The EPA has numerous rules and processes that must be followed, including long comment-seeking periods, which can add years to certain actions. States do not have the same restrictions, she says.

For example, she says, because the EPA has only issued nonbinding advisories on PFAS so far, states can implement their own drinking water and water quality standards. The Safe Drinking Water Act allows states to set drinking water standards as long as they are at least as stringent as the EPA's national standards. Under the Clean Water Act, states can set their own water quality standards — such as for lakes and rivers — to protect people and aquatic life, so long as the states show they are scientifically defensible, Southerland says.

This year, 28 states are considering new PFAS legislation, including those with large economies, such as New York and California, which last year passed a wide-ranging PFAS ban to be implemented in 2025.34 If the European Union passes its proposed ban on PFAS, observers say the impact on both U.S. and global retailers will be immense.

Although manufacturers voluntarily stopped producing PFOS and PFOA, about 600 other PFAS are still made and used in a wide variety of applications. Still, companies ranging from fast-food outlets such as McDonald's and makers of clothes, makeup, cookware and other items, are seeking PFAS-free alternatives. (See Short Feature.)

If PFAS are being phased out due to states and market forces, does Congress still need to step in with federal regulations? Proponents of federal regulation say that just because many states are passing anti-PFAS laws does not mean all of them will. “It's clear there's a number of states that are not going to take action on PFAS unless there's a federal requirement,” says Southerland. Some states may oppose it because they “don't feel that industry can afford it, or they think it's an overexaggerated problem.”

Having a federal regulatory regime would also avoid making companies deal with a patchwork quilt of differing state regulations. Without a federal law, says Southerland, “You're never going to have national consistency.”

“There is absolutely still a need for federal action to curtail the use of PFAS,” says Daniel Rosenberg, director of federal toxics policy for the National Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group. Having federal regulation would also address the issue of equity, he says, noting that not all states are equally equipped “to even start testing for PFAS contamination, let alone manage its removal.”

Congress tried to pass the PFAS Action Act last year, which would have established federal regulations governing PFAS. Among other provisions, it would have directed the EPA to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund Act; designated them as hazardous air pollutants (and potentially limiting other PFAS within five years); and established drinking water standards for PFOA and PFOS (other PFAS would have been added within two years).35

The bill passed the House in 2021, but Senate supporters could not garner enough votes to overcome a potential filibuster by opponents. The Guardian newspaper linked that failure in the Senate to intense lobbying against the bill by the chemical industry. Other Democratic proposals in Congress, which would have banned PFAS in food packaging, textiles and cosmetics and established stricter cleanup standards than currently exist, also failed.36

Attorney Robert Bilott (center) and actor Mark Ruffalo (left) join legislators in Washington as they kick off a 2019 campaign calling for limits on PFAS. Bilott has been fighting the proliferation of the dangerous chemicals for more than two decades. Ruffalo played Bilott in Dark Waters, the 2019 movie about PFAS contamination. (Getty Images/Paul Morigi)

Opponents of the PFAS Action Act, such as Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., called the bill “overwhelming, heavy handed and unscientific” and an “aggressive expansion of federal power.”37

A Republican who opposed the measure in the Senate, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, had introduced a similar bill in 2019. But she said she did not support the PFAS Action Act after hearing negative feedback from local stakeholders and learning about “the real-life impacts of this complex issue.” She also has received about $180,000 in donations from the chemical industry since 2017, reported The Guardian. 38

Some scientists and environmentalists have suggested the federal government regulate all PFAS as one class. In other words, create restrictions and standards that apply to anything that fits into the PFAS definition rather than having separate designations and regulations for each of the hundreds of chemicals in the class. This is needed because it can take many years for a specific PFAS compound to be investigated, and if done individually, could take “centuries,” argued David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group.39

The American Chemistry Council is opposed to a single-class approach. “All PFAS are not the same — it is not scientifically accurate or appropriate to group this vast family of solid, liquid and gaseous substances into a one-size-fits-all class,” says Shea. “Overly broad regulation of all PFAS could cost American jobs, disrupt supply chain resiliency and harm economic growth, in addition to hampering the ability of businesses and consumers to access the products they need.”

Are adequate alternatives to PFAS available?

A wide variety of businesses are eliminating PFAS from their products in response to state bans and consumer demand. But, while many alternative products are available, sometimes no replacement exists, or none that functions as well.

Take food packaging, for example. Many large restaurant chains, grocery stores and food producers have moved away from packaging made with PFAS or plan to switch within the next couple of years. However, PFAS-free food packaging alternatives are in short supply, says Vorst, of the Polymer Food Protection Consortium at Iowa State.

“There are no readily accessible, cost-effective PFAS replacements,” says Vorst. While researchers are working to develop more and better alternative packaging, “We're at least a couple years out before we start seeing some of this get into the market.”

In the meantime, packaging prices have risen and could go higher, Vorst says. “A major retailer told me they are expecting a huge increase in the third quarter,” he says.

Many food producers want to use recycled materials, Vorst says, but recycled paper products often contain PFAS. He and his research team are working on ways to extract PFAS from recycled paper, but this is still in the preliminary trial stage.

Firefighting foam is also hard to replace with a PFAS-free version. Many states have banned or restricted the use of aqueous film-forming foam (also known as AFFF), which has been used for decades at military facilities and civilian airports to quickly put out jet fuel fires. Congress has ordered the military to phase it out by October 2024. However, the Department of Defense has had difficulty finding alternative foams that are as effective.40

A U.S. Navy website says it has switched to PFAS-free foam for testing, maintenance and training but still uses foam containing PFAS to fight actual fires because of its ability to “rapidly extinguish dangerous fuel fires.” PFAS-free foam does not meet “the strict safety standards required to protect [Department of Defense] service members,” the website says.41

Testing shows that replacement foams can work effectively but must be applied and used differently than PFAS-containing foam. This creates “a steep learning curve” for firefighters, plus additional costs for the transition, according to the National Fire Protection Association, a nonprofit organization devoted to fire safety.42

As for replacing PFAS in consumer products, an international group of experts led by Juliane Glüge of the Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics in Switzerland found in a 2021 study that it can be relatively easy to find PFAS-free alternatives for things such as bicycle lubricants, carpeting and household cleaners.43

But, the researchers found, eliminating PFAS from industrial uses, such as semiconductor production, was more difficult, because the processes are highly technical and complex, with limited data available on the safety and feasibility of alternatives. In order to make the process of phasing out PFAS “more transparent and coherent,” Glüge and her colleagues called for more coordination among manufacturers of PFAS and the alternatives, as well as the users, government authorities and others.44

The effectiveness of PFAS alternatives can differ widely when used for waterproofing or stain repellents in clothing. A recent study found that PFAS-free repellents were generally effective for consumer clothing but not for specialty clothing for workers exposed to a wide variety of substances on the job, such as a surgeon encountering bodily fluids. In addition, replacement stain repellents did not handle olive oil or gastric juices (stomach contents) as well as PFAS-containing versions, researchers found.45

Medical devices — such as grafts, catheters and ventilators — are made with fluoropolymers, a type of PFAS. Chemical manufacturer Chemours says on its website that there are “no viable alternatives” for fluoropolymers and that they “do not pose a significant risk to human health or the environment when used for their intended purposes.”46

However, Graham Peaslee, a professor of biochemistry and physics at Notre Dame, questions the existence of risk-free PFAS. “I've never met the ‘good PFAS’ … there are no such things,” he said. “They are all long-lived, they all bioaccumulate, a good number of them are shown to be toxic, and the rest we just haven't measured yet.”47

Swedish scientist Ian T. Cousins has suggested dividing PFAS-containing products into three categories: nonessential, substitutable (essential, but PFAS alternatives exist) and essential (no PFAS substitutes yet available). For this third group, he recommends establishing time limits to spur manufacturers to develop viable alternatives.48

For nonessential products, people who cannot find a suitable PFAS-free option may want to avoid those products entirely, suggests Rosenberg, of the National Resources Defense Council.

“In many cases, the average consumer doesn't need products that are coated or contain PFAS,” he says. “Someone like me — who needs a rain jacket to stay dry while I walk my dogs — doesn't need the same level of water-resistance performance as someone climbing Mount Everest.”

Go to top

Background

Early Discovery

In 1938, Roy J. Plunkett, a 27-year-old chemist at DuPont, discovered that the sample of a refrigerant gas that he had frozen had morphed into a solid material — white, waxy, heat- and water-resistant and extremely slippery. Plunkett had inadvertently created a chemical, later known as Teflon, that was one of the first in the family of chemicals known today as pre- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.49

In 1961, Roy Plunkett (right), the inventor of Teflon, poses with other DuPont chemists in a reenactment of the discovery of the material, one of the first widely used PFAS. (AP Photo)

Other DuPont scientists took over working with the chemical (polytetrafluoroethylene, or PTFE) and began using it in research for the World War II-era Manhattan Project, which sought to develop the first atomic weapons. PTFE was discovered to be undetectable by radar, so it was painted on the nose tips of certain types of bombs to hide them from enemy combatants. It also was used to coat valves, seals and pipes, making assembly of the nation's first nuclear weapon go more smoothly.50

After the war, DuPont turned to nonmilitary purposes for Teflon. Engineers needed another PFAS chemical to make PTFE easier to work with: perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, invented by 3M in 1947. DuPont started buying PFOA from 3M in 1951 to use in manufacturing Teflon and other products.51

Another PFAS created by 3M around this time was perfluorooctane sulfate, or PFOS, used in Scotchgard to make fabrics water- and stain-resistant. PFOS was discovered in 1953 after a 3M chemist noticed the chemical had spilled on his shoe and left a coating that repelled oil and water.52

In 1967, a U.S. naval aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam, the USS Forrestal, burst into flames after an errant rocket crashed into loaded fuel tanks and aircraft parked on the deck. The inferno killed 134 service members. Soon after, 3M and the U.S. Navy began using a firefighting tool they had jointly developed called aqueous film-forming foam, which contained both PFOA and PFOS. The quick-acting foam soon was in use at military bases and military and civilian airports, on airplanes and anywhere fires from jet fuel or other types of fuel were likely.53

During the 1970s, DuPont found high concentrations of PFOA in the blood of employees at its Teflon plant in Parkersburg, W. Va., and noticed the substance bioaccumulated (meaning the body absorbed it faster than it could be eliminated).54 Internal 3M documents, revealed in a lawsuit Minnesota filed in 2010 against the company, showed that the company knew about dangers from PFOS and PFOA for decades.55

In 1976, the federal Toxic Substances Control Act went into effect, requiring manufacturers to report products that could “significantly harm” people or the environment. Neither 3M nor DuPont reported PFAS.56

Problems and Inaction

PFAS-related health effects continued to crop up as their use increased. In 1981, 3M found birth defects, such as eye problems, in rats that had ingested PFOA, while two of seven DuPont Teflon employees gave birth to babies with eye defects. In 1984, DuPont found PFOA in water supplies near its West Virginia plant, including across the Ohio River in Ohio. DuPont scientists set a PFOA safety limit equivalent to 1,000 parts per trillion in community drinking water but found that some surrounding water levels were three to five times higher.57

In the early 1990s, two studies DuPont conducted confirmed links between PFOA and liver, pancreatic and testicular cancer in rats, while water in the creek near its plant also showed very high PFOA concentrations.58

In 1998, Wilbur Tennant, a farmer in Parkersburg, W. Va., complained that chemical waste from DuPont's nearby Teflon factory was being stored in an unlined landfill near his farm. His cattle, who drank from a creek near the landfill, were experiencing birth defects, still births and blackened teeth. More than 100 had died. DuPont told Tennant his poor animal husbandry skills were to blame.59

Tennant sued DuPont in 1999, settling the following year.60 But his attorney, Rob Bilott, discovered that the water was harming not only livestock but potentially tens of thousands of people whose public water supply had been affected. In March 2001, Bilott sent a 972-page letter informing the EPA and other federal agencies of his findings. In August, he filed a class-action personal injury/wrongful suit against DuPont, representing about 70,000 residents, for allegedly contaminating drinking water near the West Virginia Washington Works plant with PFOA, a case later portrayed in the 2019 movie Dark Waters. 61

In 2005, DuPont settled the class-action suit and agreed to pay at least $107.6 million for new water filtration systems, legal fees and a health study of the exposed residents. It also agreed that if the health study found PFOA caused health problems, it would pay up to $235 million to monitor residents' health.62

Shortly after the settlement, a scientific panel with three independent experts — called the C8 Panel because PFOA is also known as C8 — began its review of the health effects of PFOA. Seven years later, the group announced that PFOA was “probably” linked to kidney and testicular cancer, as well as thyroid disease, high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis and preeclampsia.63

Bilott then filed another class-action suit against DuPont, representing plaintiffs who claimed they had health problems that the panel had determined were linked to PFOA. This suit became a multidistrict litigation centralized in the Southern District of Ohio, consolidating multiple cases representing about 3,500 people.64

Meanwhile, PFOS was also being linked to health effects and water contamination. 3M had warned Wolverine Worldwide, which manufactured products using Scotchgard during the 1960s, about its concerns in a letter in 1998 and during visits in 1999 and 2000. Wolverine did not take action to test or clean up its old waste dump sites — including the one across the street from Sandy Wynn-Stelt.65

The EPA told 3M it would order Scotchgard taken off the market if it did not remove the PFOS; 3M says the removal was voluntary. The company stopped using PFOS by 2002, replacing it with another PFAS, called PFBS.66

In March 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice subpoenaed DuPont to appear before a federal grand jury as part of an investigation related to PFOA. In December of that year, DuPont agreed to pay the EPA a $10.25 million penalty for failing to report the substantial risk to the environment and public health posed by PFOA, and another $6.25 million in penalties, in what at the time was the largest civil administrative penalty the EPA had ever obtained. The department later decided not to pursue criminal charges against the company.67

In 2007, 3M paid a $1.5 million fine for withholding information about PFAS.68

Maine dairy farmer Fred Stone, seen here in 2019, has had to destroy his cows' milk since 2015 after his fields were irrigated with PFAS-contaminated water. Lawyers and activists say companies and government agencies have been aware of the potential dangers of PFAS for decades but have done little to mitigate the health risks. (Getty Images/Portland Press Herald/Gregory Rec)

The EPA, by then well aware of the health and environmental threats posed by PFAS, began negotiating with DuPont to stop using PFOA. The company wanted its competitors to agree to this as well, so in 2006, the EPA invited eight major manufacturers of PFAS to join a PFOA Stewardship Program, in which the companies agreed to work toward full elimination of the product by 2015.69

For the next few years, the EPA backed off, according to attorney Bilott. “After the PFOA Stewardship Program fanfare, EPA's engagement in all PFOA matters essentially came to a screeching halt,” Bilott wrote in his 2019 book, Exposure. “EPA, in fact, would take no significant action on PFOA for another decade.”70

DuPont and 3M “have known for 70 years that they were poisoning the water, and they didn't tell the EPA, they didn't tell their neighbors, they didn't tell their workers. They didn't tell anyone because they were making too much money,” said Melanie Benesh, a legislative attorney for the Environmental Working Group in Washington. “There have also been regulatory failures. The FDA knew [about the dangers of PFAS] in the 1960s. The Department of Defense knew in the 1970s. And the EPA has known at least since the 1990s, and they didn't treat the issue with the amount of urgency that was needed.”71

Regulation and Cleanup

DuPont began producing GenX as a substitute for PFOA in 2009. That same year, the EPA issued a provisional health advisory under the Safe Drinking Water Act, limiting PFOA in drinking water to 400 parts per trillion. Such advisories are nonbinding but alert local water systems about thresholds they may want to set.72

In 2015 the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that PFAS were present in 97 percent of Americans' blood samples.73 More than one quarter of the U.S. population had PFOA/PFOS blood levels that were higher than levels deemed safe by the German Environment Agency, environmental advocates point out.74

In 2016, the EPA revised its earlier advisory limit for PFAS in drinking water to 70 ppt total for PFOA and PFOS, individually or combined. This new standard resulted in many states and municipalities testing their water, sometimes resulting in cleanup efforts and lawsuits.75

Typically, efforts to clean up PFAS have involved methods such as reverse osmosis or granular activated carbon, says Southerland. The contaminants are then removed for further treatment and disposal. Sometimes, they have been incinerated, but testing revealed that instead of being destroyed, the PFAS were being emitted into the air. New technologies are being developed to destroy the remaining, concentrated PFAS. (See Short Feature.)

Also in 2016, Congress amended the Toxic Substances Control Act to require safety reviews for chemicals “in active commerce” — which included about 600 PFAS — and gave the EPA more authority to mandate testing of new and existing chemicals, among other measures.76

The next year, Donald Trump became president, after having vowed during the campaign to gut the EPA. Southerland, who once directed the EPA's Office of Water, says that when Trump took office, his approach was “an all-out assault. Every single program was reoriented. Whatever industry leaders wanted, they got.” The number of staff members was also severely cut, she says.

In 2019, the EPA announced its PFAS Action Plan for dealing with new and existing PFAS, but the Trump administration delayed its implementation.77 As of February 2020, according to Rep. Dan Kildee, a Michigan Democrat and co-chair of Congress' bipartisan PFAS Task Force, many of the agency's promises had gone unfulfilled.78

President Biden took office promising a greater push for environmental action. In 2021, his administration issued its own PFAS Action Plan, under which the EPA would initiate a new, national testing strategy and analysis of 29 PFAS, among other measures. The Department of Defense vowed to complete PFAS cleanup assessments at nearly 700 military locations by the end of 2023.79

Last June, the EPA issued a new PFAS drinking water advisory, slashing the acceptable PFOA level by 17,000 times — to 0.004 ppt, or near zero — and to 0.02 ppt for PFOS. For the first time the agency set advisory limits on the two replacement PFAS — GenX and PFBS — due to concerns over these chemicals' health effects.80

Also in 2022, the Senate failed to adopt the House-passed PFAS Action Act, which would have restricted PFAS in water.81 Nearly 50 other PFAS bills failed in Congress in 2022, although provisions enacted in the National Defense Reauthorization Act included an order for the military to combat PFAS contamination at its locations.82

In July 2022, the FDA found PFAS in canned clams at levels high enough to warrant a warning for adults consuming more than 10 ounces in a month, or a child eating more than two ounces. Two food manufacturers then voluntarily recalled their canned clams.83

Meanwhile, 11 states in recent years have required PFAS to be phased out of food packaging; five of those states also restricted PFAS in carpets and rugs. Eleven states have banned firefighting foam containing PFAS. Maine has banned all products containing “intentionally added” PFAS, but the ban will not go into full effect until 2030. Its ban on PFAS-containing carpets, rugs and fabric treatments began in January.84

Countries across the globe also have ramped up regulation of PFAS. In May 2019, governments at the U.N. Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants agreed to ban PFOA worldwide, but with five-year exemptions for PFOAs used in several sectors.85

In September that year, Denmark became the first country to ban PFAS from food packaging.86 The following year, a ban on PFOA went into effect in more than 160 countries, covering about 150 PFOA-related substances. China, Israel, Japan, the United States and several other large countries did not participate.87

Lawsuits

Seventeen states have sued chemical manufacturers to recoup cleanup costs, with Delaware, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota having already settled such cases, including:88

• 3M and shoe manufacturer Wolverine Worldwide paid $113 million in 2018 to municipalities in Michigan over PFAS waste that had been discharged into private water wells.89

• Also in 2018, 3M agreed to pay $850 million to the state of Minnesota to clean up PFAS contamination, although the company did not admit fault and continued to maintain (as of late 2022) that exposure to PFOA and PFOS has not been shown to cause adverse health effects.90

In 2017, DuPont (and its spin-off company, Chemours) — without admitting fault — agreed to pay $670 million to settle multidistrict litigation filed in 2013 in Ohio, related to PFOA contamination stemming from the Parkersburg, W. Va., plant.91

In September 2018, a federal judicial panel consolidated cases arising out of PFAS-laden firefighting foam into multidistrict litigation set in the U.S. District Court of South Carolina, and about 3,700 claimants had joined the action as of February. The first case is expected to be heard in May, says Dunn.92

Between 2005 and May 2022, 6,400 PFAS-related lawsuits were filed against a variety of companies whose products contain the chemicals, according to Bloomberg News. Judge Richard Gergel, a federal judge overseeing thousands of such cases, predicted last July: “It does not take a genius to figure out that if certain motions don't go their way, the defendants [face] an existential threat to their survival.”93

Then in August, the chemical industry hit back, suing the EPA and claiming that the agency's strict new water advisories setting near-zero limits for PFOA and PFOS would have “sweeping implications” for state and federal policies. In January, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit dismissed the case, which had been filed by the American Chemistry Council.94

And, in a new trend in PFAS litigation, consumer protection lawsuits are being filed alleging misrepresentations about product safety rather than that someone experienced personal harm, says attorney Dunn. Because the cases are being brought under consumer fraud and false advertising laws, she says, plaintiffs do not need to prove they were hurt. Instead, they can say, “‘I purchased this product believing it was safe. Now I've learned it's not, and I am entitled to compensation for breach of contract,’” she says.

Companies that advertise their products as nontoxic and safe (not necessarily that they are PFAS-free) have been sued once they are found to contain PFAS. Thinx, which manufacturers menstrual products, for example, settled a class-action suit in January when its menstrual underwear, advertised as safe and sustainable, was found to contain PFAS.95

And, after a Consumer Reports investigation in 2022 found PFAS packaging in 24 restaurant and grocery chains, consumers filed three lawsuits seeking class-action status against Burger King and McDonald's (both of which had announced plans to have all PFAS removed from packaging by 2025). The suits charge the brands with fraud, misrepresentation and false advertising by claiming their food is safe.96

As for the manufacturers, 3M announced in December that it would stop manufacturing PFAS by the end of 2025, even though PFAS are “essential for modern life” and “can be safely made and used,” according to the company. Increased regulation made the move necessary, the company said. Bloomberg Law, a news site, estimated that the company faces up to $30 billion in PFAS lawsuit settlements.97

However, Chemours, the DuPont spin-off, remains bullish on PFAS. Chemours' sales of fluoropolymers totaled $1.6 billion in 2022 — up 16 percent from 2021 — and represent about 20 percent of its business. The company says it will expand production of some varieties, which it said are safe when used properly.98

Go to top

Current Situation

Federal Action

In March, the EPA issued its first-ever proposed drinking water regulations for PFAS. The agency set limits for PFOA and PFOS at no more than four ppt, plus a variable limit for four other PFAS. Public water utilities will be required to monitor for these six chemicals, notify the public if amounts exceed the new levels and take action to reduce the chemicals in the water supply.99

The EPA, environmental advocates and some legislators praise the move as necessary to protect public health. “This action has the potential to prevent tens of thousands of PFAS-related illnesses and marks a major step toward safeguarding all our communities from these dangerous contaminants,” said EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan. The EPA estimates the measure will save $1.2 billion in health care costs. Pennsylvania Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, who co-chairs the Congressional PFAS Task Force called the move “a step in the right direction.”100

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announces in November 2022 that the state is suing 3M, Dupont and 16 other companies for not reporting the dangers caused by the “forever chemicals” they manufacture, which for decades have found their way into public waterways and human bloodstreams. (AP Photo/Terry Chea)

However, water utilities are concerned about how much it will cost to comply, with some saying the EPA's estimate of $772 million annually is unrealistic. The American Water Works Association, which represents water systems, said more than 7,500 utilities will have to develop or adjust their PFAS treatment systems. Tom Dobbins, chief executive of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, representing public water utilities, said upgrading just one system to filter out PFAS — the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority in North Carolina — cost an estimated $43 million. The EPA said small and rural water utilities can defray costs with federal funds.101

The American Chemistry Council called the EPA's limits a “misguided approach,” questioned the science used to develop them and said they “will likely result in billions of dollars in compliance costs.”102

The EPA, which is seeking public comment on the rule, hopes to have it finalized before the end of the year.103

The EPA also says it will issue the final version of a rule designating PFOA and PFAS as hazardous substances under federal Superfund legislation this summer or fall. An EPA spokesman says the agency is reviewing about 60,000 comments it received when it proposed the rule last year.

“It's a major regulatory action for this administration, so I don't see them declining to proceed,” says Dunn, the attorney and former EPA official. “I also believe that [after it is enacted], almost immediately there will be a lawsuit filed against that final action,” because the ruling will create “a whole cascade of liabilities” over what needs to be cleaned up and who pays for it.

The courts may or may not stay the EPA action while the regulation is being challenged, Dunn says, noting that there are strong arguments on both sides.

In February the Environmental Working Group criticized the Biden administration for delays in implementing its PFAS Action Plan, saying that more than 30 percent of its goals have not been met.104 Former EPA official Southerland says the agency has been working diligently to undo staff cuts and other changes made during the Trump administration and to pivot to its own agenda, all of which must meet time-intensive EPA procedural rules.

“Let's face it — EPA legislation is written deliberately to make it a very slow process with many opportunities to weigh in,” Southerland says.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats continue to seek more funding and action on PFAS, despite the failure of the PFAS Action Act last year.

A group of 36 Democratic and Independent senators wrote to Biden on Feb. 13 seeking more funding to better address PFAS challenges in research, regulation and remediation. The senators requested a “significant” increase in funding for testing and cleanup at approximately 700 military sites with known or suspected PFAS contamination; for prioritized use of the $10 billion in PFAS cleanup included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act; and for funds to help farmers, growers and producers whose products have been contaminated by PFAS.105

No Republicans signed the letter.

The most likely legislative path for such relief would be by attaching it to large, must-pass bills that typically draw bipartisan support, such as the farm bill, which is up for reauthorization this year, or the annual Defense Authorization Act, says Sarah Doll, the national director of Safer States, an alliance of environmental health groups.

PFAS should be a bipartisan issue, given that it affects both red and blue states and voters living in rural, suburban and urban areas, she says.

Foam containing forever chemicals accumulates along a creek near Wurtsmith Air Force Base in Michigan. The Department of Defense is assessing how to clean up nearly 700 locations near military bases that have been contaminated with the foam, which is used to fight fires on base. (AP Photo/The Flint Journal/Jake May)

However, Republican control of the House of Representatives may make this more difficult. “It's possible they will prevent any aggressive new amendments on PFAS from being included,” Southerland says.

State and Legal Actions

This year, according to Safer States, 28 states will be considering PFAS proposals. At least 16 will consider restricting all uses of PFAS in certain areas, such as food packaging, cosmetics, textiles and firefighting foam, or in all areas except where use is unavoidable. States also are looking at requiring sellers to disclose PFAS in products.106

“The momentum is still building; I don't think we've hit the crest yet,” says Doll. State action concerning PFAS began about five years ago and continues to grow, she says. More states are trying to prevent PFAS from getting into consumer products, she says, and they are beginning to test for PFAS in water, soil and sludge. Several states, including Oklahoma, are starting to develop PFAS sludge policies, she says.

Some state-passed PFAS control measures, such as Maine's ban on the use of PFAS in food packaging, go into effect this year. Washington state's ban on PFAS-containing packaging will be phased in: Since February, wraps, liners, plates, food boats and pizza boxes containing the chemicals have been banned, and other paper materials will meet the same fate in May 2024.

On Jan. 31, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul sued 3M, Chemours, DuPont and other manufacturers seeking to recover costs for identifying, monitoring and cleaning up PFAS-contaminated groundwater.

“For decades, manufacturers have been aware of the dangers of PFAS yet still promote the chemicals as being safe to use. As a result, PFAS have contaminated our water supplies across Illinois,” Raoul said. He said PFAS had been found in 152 community water supplies, including 70 entry points with levels above what the state deems safe. “The manufacturers of forever chemicals must be held accountable for the widespread contamination to our natural resources.”107

Meanwhile, consumer protection cases are expected to continue. In January, a class-action suit filed against Coca-Cola claims its “all-natural” Simply Tropical juice contains high levels of PFAS.108

Go to top

Outlook

Bipartisan Solutions?

Just as PFAS are persistent and long-lasting, so are the legislative and policy challenges they present. Congress, federal agencies and states are likely to be dealing with PFAS cleanup costs, regulatory challenges and other problems for decades, experts say.

The breadth of the problem may help unite a divided Congress to seek solutions, says Southerland, of the Environmental Protection Network. “There's so much contamination in the red states,” she says. “It's not just a blue state thing.”

Doll, head of Safer States, is not as sanguine over the prospect of the federal action. “I'm not holding my breath,” she says, looking instead to market forces and state actions.

“You're seeing the marketplace already respond to the regulatory environment,” she says. Bans by large states with big economies, such as California, have ripple effects nationwide, including companies voluntarily pulling PFAS products.

In addition, she says, the European Union's proposal to ban all nonessential, unintentional uses of PFAS, submitted in February and to be decided within six months, and other global concerns about PFAS “are shifting the economic incentives.”

If passed, the EU ban would affect thousands of American products sold in Europe, including camping gear, cellphones, computers and cars. The proposal is “staggering” in its breadth, said Lawrence Culleen, a Washington lawyer who specializes in chemical regulations. It could have “enormous impact on any company doing business in or with the EU,” said John Gardella, who specializes in PFAS issues. It could also motivate more U.S. states to adopt similar bans or inspire more PFAS legislation on Capitol Hill.109

Attorney Dunn also sees Congress involved with PFAS concerns over the next few years, but with more narrow, targeted legislation rather than broad actions. “I do not think Congress would set a national cleanup level or national drinking water level,” she says, but would leave such actions to the regulatory agencies. However, Congress could chide the EPA to move more quickly, or might pass “specialty focus bills,” such as laws concerning firefighter exposure.

Favors, whose military family drank contaminated water on and near an Air Force base in Colorado, says he is not sure he'll see sufficient action to prevent PFAS exposure in his lifetime, let alone the next few years. He is frustrated by what he sees as lack of accountability at the Pentagon for, he alleges, “poisoning my family” when they knew about PFAS dangers for years and did nothing to prevent exposure. He says he is also disappointed in “civilian environmental administrators at the Pentagon and Congress members who are supposed to be doing oversight to protect military families.”

Meanwhile, Sandy Wynn-Stelt says the contaminated landfill across the street from her Michigan house is still leaking into the underground aquifer and the local river. She is working for tighter regulations to improve such situations, but it can seem a daunting task, she says.

Wynn-Stelt says it can be difficult to maintain the fight against entities such as the American Chemistry Council, 3M and Dupont, which “have such power that none of us have,” she says, and “they kind of have driven regulations and drive policy.”

Vorst, the Iowa State associate professor and researcher, predicts that more PFAS regulation “is coming for sure. It's just inevitable.”

However, he would like to see “a more careful approach to eliminating PFAS over time.” He recommends bringing together representatives from industry, state and federal governments. “We'd have everyone come to the table on this and start looking at a data-driven, phased solution,” he says. “Then we can start looking at technologies to actually clean up the environment, too. This can be done.”

Researchers across the country are working on ways to permanently remove PFAS, which, if successful, would render the “forever” name obsolete, potentially providing a future with fewer PFAS challenges. (See Short Feature.)

But Rainer Lohmann, an oceanography professor at the University of Rhode Island, is not so optimistic. He cites a February report from the Environmental Working Group showing that PFAS have been found in more than 330 wildlife species on every continent except Antarctica.110

“PFAS are everywhere and in most animals surveyed,” he said. “I am not sure the general public is fully aware how thoroughly these chemicals have penetrated the environment.”111

Go to top

Pro/Con

Should the government ban PFAS?

Pro Daniel Rosenberg Director, Federal Toxics Policy, Natural Resources Defense Council. Written for CQ Researcher, March 2023 PFAS are associated with a wide range of health effects including cancer of the kidneys and testicles, thyroid disease, pregnancy-related hypertension, damage to the liver and immune system and developmental harm. And, thanks to the carelessness and callousness of Dupont, Chemours (a Dupont spin-off), 3M and others, the drinking water, food and homes of millions of Americans across the country are now polluted with these chemicals. Yet, they are still widely used in commercial and consumer products, including in food packaging, cleaning products, clothing, refrigerants and more. While individual states and communities are scrambling to adopt their own management approaches and laws to curtail PFAS exposure, these toxic chemicals are so ubiquitous that their impact crosses all geopolitical boundaries. There are numerous issues with the federal government's current approach to managing these harmful chemicals. Fundamentally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has adopted its own definition of PFAS, which is inconsistent with the broader definition generally used by scientists, health practitioners and international communities. The EPA's narrow definition of PFAS means they are only gathering data about and addressing a small part of the thousands of PFAS that make up this chemical class, which could result in significant underreporting of exposure to the widespread contamination across the nation. Additionally, the U.S government is assessing PFAS chemicals one-by-one to determine their toxicity, health risks and management plan — a costly, slow and ineffective approach — and continues to approve the manufacture of new PFAS. This gives manufacturers the opportunity to replace one PFAS chemical with another that might be just as harmful but has yet to be studied. This has already happened with the regrettable substitutions of GenX for PFOA and PFBS for PFOS. We cannot let history repeat itself. Current federal safety regulations are littered with loopholes that do not properly protect the health and well-being of the public. Since PFAS are extremely persistent, tend to be highly mobile and difficult to treat, and large-scale cleanup technologies are inaccessible to most communities, Americans will continue to be exposed to increased risks of PFAS pollution in our air, water, food and household products. The federal government must pass legislation to ban all nonessential uses of PFAS chemicals as quickly as possible, identify safer substitutes for essential uses and hold polluters accountable for contamination and responsible for cleanup.

Con Robert J. Simon Vice President, Chemical Products and Technology Division, American Chemistry Council. Written for CQ Researcher, March 2023 PFAS chemistries are absolutely vital to our lives in the 21st century and critical to the reliable and safe function of a broad range of essential products, including cellphones, semiconductors, aircraft, electric batteries, medical devices and drugs, and more. Broad restrictions on this important technology could significantly harm economic growth, cost countless jobs, damage U.S. supply chain resiliency and hamper businesses and consumers from accessing the products they need. PFAS are used in many applications critical to U.S. priorities in energy, climate and defense and to return critical industries from overseas. Indeed, the ability to manufacture such products would be impossible if all PFAS were banned and could actually disadvantage the United States by driving such manufacturing abroad. Unfortunately, misconceptions abound about PFAS, which present challenges to developing smart regulatory approaches and policies. It is critical to understand that PFAS are a diverse universe of chemistries with different physical, chemical and toxicological properties and uses. One PFAS chemistry, fluoropolymers, are widely and responsibly used in the automotive, aerospace, health care, pharmaceutical and clean energy industries. Overreaching restrictions could cripple America's economy while making no meaningful impact on human health. A scientific consensus is emerging that it is inaccurate, even impossible, to group all PFAS together for regulation purposes, while also recognizing valid approaches for subgrouping and regulating these very different chemistries. So, we need smart regulation of this technology. There are certainly important issues to be addressed regarding specific PFAS and uses, but we must be thoughtful about how we focus our efforts. The federal government, including Congress, has taken a more comprehensive approach, with active efforts underway to manage PFAS. In October 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency announced its PFAS Roadmap, an agencywide approach to addressing PFAS. The Biden administration also launched an Interagency Policy Committee on PFAS and highlighted additional supportive activities by other federal agencies. In total, more than 70 regulatory actions are already being implemented by 10 agencies. Our member companies are committed to the responsible production, use and management of PFAS chemistries in a manner that protects public health and our environment. We have an opportunity to appropriately define, subcategorize and regulate this technology. Let us work together toward smarter and more effective public policy that protects human health and the environment while recognizing the many different types of PFAS and their critical uses.

Go to top

Discussion Questions

Here are some issues to consider regarding forever chemicals:

• The dangers posed by PFAS have been recognized since the early 1960s, yet the chemicals have not been banned nationwide. What obstacles have prevented such a measure?

• In the absence of an enforceable U.S. nationwide standard on allowable levels of PFAS in drinking water, states have stepped in to regulate such chemicals. Do you think this is an effective way to tackle this problem?

• The chemical industry says PFAS are needed to produce a broad range of products — such as cellphones, semiconductors, aircraft, electric batteries, medical devices and drugs — and that broad restrictions on the chemicals could harm economic growth and damage U.S. supply chains. How can this problem be overcome?

• Who do you think should pay for cleaning up water supplies and waste sites polluted with PFAS?

• Researchers at universities all over the country are developing ways to remove PFAS from water. Why do you think PFAS manufacturers never conducted this kind of research?

Go to top

Go to top

Short Features

Is it Possible to Live PFAS-Free?

You wake up, roll out from under your stain-resistant comforter and head to the bathroom. After showering, you floss your teeth, put on lotion and apply waterproof mascara — all while standing on your flame-retardant bathroom rug. Next comes breakfast: eggs tossed in a nonstick pan, followed by a muffin in a takeout container, washed down with spring-fed bottled water.1

All these actions represent chances for exposure to PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals” that have been linked to various cancers and other health dangers — and you're barely an hour into your day. Many more await.

This whole-house filtration system reduces PFOA and PFOS contamination. As public awareness of PFAS and their potential health risks grows, companies have begun offering products aimed at minimizing the risks. (Screenshot/aquasana.com)

“It's almost impossible to avoid PFAS,” said Sydney Evans, a science analyst at the Environmental Working Group, which analyzes PFAS in products. “They are prevalent in all aspects of our daily lives.”2

So, what can you do? While you may not be able to go completely PFAS-free, experts suggest doing certain things that can reduce your exposure, such as:

• Watch your water. Most of our exposure comes from drinking water, said Erin Bell, a professor of environmental health sciences at the School of Public Health at the State University of New York in Albany.3

  If your water comes from a public system, call your water utility to see if they've tested it for PFAS; if it comes from a private well, check with your health department to find out where to have it tested. You may want to switch to filtered water, using a reverse osmosis system or water filters certified to remove PFAS. A Johns Hopkins study found that bottled water labeled as “purified” was less likely to contain PFAS than “spring” water.4

  Clean Water Action, an American environmental advocacy group, has published a “Shopper's Guide to Avoiding PFAS.”5

• Stop using nonstick cookware. Some types may be labeled “PFOA free,” one form of PFAS, but that does not necessarily mean the cookware is, in fact, free of all the many forms of forever chemicals, says Consumer Reports. 6

  “I tell folks to throw away their nonstick pans, because even if it's not [made with] PFOA or PFOS, there are other PFAS chemicals in there,” said Laura Anderko, who co-directs the Mid-Atlantic Center for Children's Health and the Environment at Villanova University and who co-wrote a guide to PFAS for health care providers.7 PFOA (an ingredient in Teflon) and PFOS (used in Scotchgard) are versions of PFAS that have been linked to health risks.

  Better choices, experts say, is cookware made from cast iron, stainless steel or glass. Or, if nonstick is a must, silicone enamel or ceramic-coated cookware.8

• Avoid using anything labeled as waterproof, stain-resistant or wrinkle-resistant. PFAS are often used to provide such attributes, whether in bedding, rugs and carpets, clothes, makeup or other products.9 Sometimes products can be made without PFAS, but if not, consumers may need to weigh the benefits of, say, a stain-free sofa with exposure to the chemicals that make it so. This can be especially true if you have children in the home.

  “It's understandable parents would want the convenience of waterproof and stain-repellent products for babies and toddlers, who are constantly making messes,” Evans said. PFAS coatings, he said, “aren't necessary.”10

• Take care with your personal care products. Lotion, dental floss, cosmetics, nail polish and shampoo all can contain PFAS. Check labels for anything with “fluoro” or “perfluoro” in the ingredients list. You may also want to consult the Environmental Working Group's “Skin Deep” database of more than 88,000 personal care products.11

• Limit certain foods. PFAS can be found in milk, meat, produce and seafood. Last year, the FDA found high levels of PFAS in canned clams, prompting two product recalls. Freshwater fish is more likely to contain PFAS than fish from the ocean, so check local fish advisories before eating.12

• Be cautious about food packaging. While some fast-food companies have eliminated, and some states have banned, PFAS in packaging, it is still a good idea to be wary. Grease-protective wraps and compostable containers can contain PFAS. Microwave popcorn bags almost always contain it (switching to a glass microwave popper is a better option, experts suggest). Even dog and cat food bags have been found to contain PFAS.13

• Dust often. Household dust can carry PFAS that sheds from products, which can then be inhaled or rubbed off on skin. This is especially true if you have toddlers or pets, who may spend extra time on the floor. Experts advise wiping with wet cloths, using a wet mop on solid floors and vacuuming carpets frequently.14

As you work to limit PFAS exposure, do not rely on claims that pronounce a product as “green” or “nontoxic” yet do not mention PFAS. More than half of 93 consumer products used by children and labeled green or nontoxic contained PFAS, according to a 2022 study by the Silent Spring Institute, an independent, nonprofit environmental research organization.15

On the other hand, “GreenScreen Certified” products have been lab-tested to be free of PFAS (as well as other toxic substances), according to the Sierra Club, an environmental group.16

In addition to reading labels, consumers can check out what retailers are doing regarding PFAS in products by visiting Toxic Free Future's “Retailer Report Card,” which tracks action taken by a variety of national brands. Another resource, “PFAS Central,” maintained by Green Science Policy, an environmental advocacy group, lists PFAS-free products by category, with detailed retailer information.17

Your state also may have, or be considering, banning PFAS in certain product categories, which may help make it a little easier to avoid these chemicals. Various states' progress can be monitored at SaferStates.com.

— Lorna Collier

[1] Benji Jones, “You probably have ‘forever chemicals’ in your body. Here's what that means,” Vox, Aug. 25, 2022, https://www.vox.com/2022/8/25/23318667/pfas-forever-chemicals-safety-drinking-water; Ryan Felton, “New Study Finds PFAS in Bottled Water, as Lawmakers Call for Federal Limits,” Consumer Reports, June 17, 2021, https://www.consumerreports.org/bottled-water/pfas-in-bottled-water-new-study-finds-a1111233122/.

[2] Sharon Udasin, “Toxic ‘forever chemicals’ found in children's textiles, pet packaging,” The Hill, Nov. 3, 2022, https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/3716674-toxic-forever-chemicals-found-in-childrens-textiles-pet-food-packaging/.

[3] Shantal Riley, “What Are PFAS? A Guide to ‘Forever Chemicals,’” Everyday Health, Aug. 18, 2022, https://www.everydayhealth.com/healthy-living/pfas-forever-chemicals/guide/.

[4] Paul Frysh, “PFAS: What to Know,” WebMD, June 16, 2022, https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-is-pfas; Felton, op. cit.

[5] “Shopper's Guide to Avoiding PFAS,” Clean Water Action, https://cleanwateraction.org/sites/default/files/MA%20PFAS%20Fact%20Sheet%20-%20Shopper%27s%20Guide%20to%20Avoiding%20PFAS.pdf.

[6] Kevin Loria, “You Can't Always Trust Claims on ‘Non-Toxic’ Cookware,” Consumer Reports, Oct. 26, 2022, https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/you-cant-always-trust-claims-on-non-toxic-cookware-a4849321487/.

[7] Riley, op. cit.

[8] “Shopper's Guide to Avoiding PFAS,” op. cit.; Loria, op. cit.

[9] “Stop PFAS at the Source,” Water Environment Federation, https://www.wef.org/pfas.

[10] Udasin, op. cit.

[11] “Your guide to safer personal care products,” Environmental Working Group, https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/; Melinda Fulmer, “Is your long-lasting makeup toxic? Study raises concerns about PFAS in cosmetics,” The Washington Post, Aug. 11, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/wellness/pfas-cosmetics-forever-chemicals-toxic/2021/08/11/f6475ab4-f9f3-11eb-8a67-f14cd1d28e47_story.html; “Shopper's Guide to Avoiding PFAS,” op. cit.

[12] Ibid.; Frysh, op. cit.; and “FDA Shares Results on PFAS Testing in Seafood,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, July 15, 2022, https://www.fda.gov/food/cfsan-constituent-updates/fda-shares-results-pfas-testing-seafood.

[13] Frysh, op. cit.; “New tests find toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in pet food bags and baby textiles,” Environmental Working Group, November 2022, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2022/11/new-tests-find-toxic-forever-chemicals-pet-food-bags-and-baby.

[14] Matt Kristoffersen, “Study identifies potentially harmful substances in household dust,” Yale School of Public Health, Feb. 4, 2022, https://ysph.yale.edu/news-article/study-identifies-potentially-harmful-substances-in-household-dust/; Frysh, op. cit.

[15] Grace Van Drelen, “‘Green’ children's products not always PFAS-free, warns new study,” Environmental Health News, May 4, 2022, https://www.ehn.org/exposure-of-children-to-pfas-2657258296.html.

[16] Jessian Choy, “PFAS Are Everywhere. We Need Systems Change to Fix That,” Sierra Club, Dec. 26, 2022, https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/4-november-december/material-world/pfas-are-everywhere-we-need-systems-change-fix.

[17] “Who's Minding the Store?” Retailer Report Card, Toxic-Free Future, https://retailerreportcard.com; “Shopper's Guide to Avoiding PFAS,” op. cit.

Go to top

Scientists Developing Ways to Destroy Forever Chemicals

In labs around the country, researchers are developing various ways to destroy long-lasting PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), reducing the danger to human and environmental health posed by such chemicals and aiming to eliminate the “forever” nature of their threat.

PFAS are known to be persistent in the environment, with some types taking up to 1,000 years to biodegrade. However, one promising discovery has shown that treating tap water containing PFAS with hydrogen and ultraviolet light for 45 minutes can cause 95 percent of the chemicals to fall apart into harmless components.

Scientists at the University of California at Riverside revealed last December that water infused with hydrogen releases electrons that weaken PFAS' molecular bonds. Researchers then used pulses of high-energy UV light to accelerate the reaction, creating what they called a “one-two punch.”18

“The technology has shown very promising results in the destruction of PFAS in both drinking water and different types of industrial wastewater,” said study author Haizhou Liu, an associate professor of chemical and environmental engineering. The researchers hope their method can be developed into a machine that could remove PFAS from large water tanks or other water sources.19

Another technology, developed by Northwestern University researchers, can destroy PFAS by using heat and relatively common chemicals. The researchers heated PFAS in a mixture of dimethyl sulfoxide (a widely used solvent) and sodium hydroxide (lye). This process broke the PFAS' chemical bonds, leaving behind nontoxic byproducts. The technique uses less heat and energy than other methods and does not leave behind any chemicals requiring further destruction.20

Chemistry Professor William Dichtel of Northwestern University is one of many researchers working on ways to destroy PFAS in the environment. (Courtesy Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences)

“It was so simple we can't believe it was never known,” said William Dichtel, a Northwestern chemistry professor who, along with colleague Brittany Trang, is credited with developing the method. “We wanted to use chemistry to address this problem and create a solution that the world can use.”21

Results so far apply only to the 40 percent of PFAS that contain carboxylic acids, such as PFOA, which is used to make Teflon and has been found to raise the risk for certain cancers and other health conditions, such as high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease and pregnancy-induced hypertension. Other PFAS have not yet been tested. The next step is to move beyond the lab and try the method on a larger scale.22

Meanwhile, scientists at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill also are working on a relatively inexpensive way to fight water contamination, using ionic fluorogel technology. This method filters PFAS from water using electrostatics (applying positive charges to PFAS, which usually are negatively charged), combined with a fluorine reaction, which attracts the PFAS to a reusable resin filter. In lab testing, the technique removed 100 percent of PFAS from water, creating “a concentrated brine of PFAS that we can then destroy,” said Frank Leibfarth, a chemist and researcher.23

The ionic fluorogel works for at least 13 or 14 months, compared to commonly used granular activated carbon filters, which must be replaced every four or five months, thus saving money, Leibfarth said. North Carolina has awarded $10 million to fund three pilot projects for the method, which may begin later this year. Lakes and rivers in eastern North Carolina, particularly the Cape Fear River basin, have been contaminated with PFAS.24

Other researchers have used electrochemical approaches. Aclarity, a Massachusetts-based PFAS destruction technology company, announced in January that a pilot project had destroyed PFAS in the substances that leach from landfills. Aclarity also has destroyed PFAS contaminants in water by passing electric current through it.25

Another Aclarity pilot project, in North Carolina, has removed concentrated PFAS from municipal treatment plant water. The company is also helping a textile company in Italy treat PFAS and is working with U.S. military bases and firefighting academies to develop a mobile treatment system to clean up PFAS contaminated firefighting foam waste.26

“Electrochemistry has promise,” said Orren Schneider, chief science officer at Aclarity. “We're showing that we can actually destroy these compounds and render them harmless.”27

In Australia, researchers at the University of Queensland have developed a technique to coat PFAS with a magnetic solution, then pull them out of the water using a magnet. This technique could remove about 95 percent of most PFAS (and 99 percent of the GenX type) within 30 seconds. GenX was introduced as a safer replacement for older versions of PFAS, but researchers say it is more mobile and persistent in water environments.28

“Because our process does not need electricity, it can be used in remote and off-grid communities,” said Cheng Zhang, co-author of the study. The researchers hope a commercially available product will be ready within three years.29

Engineers at the University of Washington have destroyed PFAS using “supercritical water” — which has been heated and pressurized until it becomes neither a liquid nor a gas but is more akin to plasma. The resulting water molecules corrode the PFAS, in a method that also has been used to destroy chemical warfare agents. It leaves behind only harmless substances, such as carbon dioxide, water and fluoride salts, researchers say.30

Supercritical water oxidation is also being used by Battelle, a nonprofit research organization that calls its technology the “PFAS Annihilator.” Battelle has destroyed PFAS in landfill leachate in Michigan and used the method to eliminate firefighting foam wastes.31

Colorado School of Mines researcher Timothy Strathmann, a professor of civil and environmental engineering, pioneered what he terms “a pressure cooker on steroids” to destroy PFAS without creating any toxic byproducts. The technology, called HALT (for hydrothermal alkaline treatment), has “demonstrated complete destruction, or very close to it,” said Steve Woodard, chief innovation officer at ECT2, a Maine PFAS-removal company.32

HALT works by raising the pH, heat and pressure on PFAS inside a heat-resistant reactor. The process can break down PFAS molecules to “nondetectable levels,” says Strathmann. It has been effective with many different types of PFAS, according to an EPA database of thermal treatments.33

None of these solutions has been used on a large scale yet, said Corey Theriault, a technical expert focusing on PFAS treatment for Arcadis, a Minnesota engineering firm. However, he said, some are further along, and could be ready within the next six to 18 months.34

As to which might offer the solution to the PFAS problem? “There's no one technology that's going to crush it across the board,” he said.35

— Lorna Collier

[18] Charlotte Elton, “From magnets to lawsuits, here's how we can fix the forever chemicals problem,” euronews.green, Feb. 6, 2023, https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/02/06/from-magnets-to-lawsuits-heres-how-we-can-fix-the-forever-chemicals-problem; Becky Ferreira, “Scientists Destroyed 95% of Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Just 45 Minutes, Study Reports,” Vice, Jan. 3, 2023, https://www.vice.com/en/article/akep8j/scientists-destroyed-95-of-toxic-forever-chemicals-in-just-45-minutes-study-reports.

[19] Ferreira, ibid.

[20] Davis Giangiulio, “Northwestern research group makes breakthrough on disposal of ‘forever chemicals,’” The Daily Northwestern, Oct. 12, 2022, https://dailynorthwestern.com/2022/10/12/campus/northwestern-research-group-makes-breakthrough-on-disposal-of-forever-chemicals/; Amanda Morris, “‘Forever chemicals’ destroyed by simple new method,” Northwestern Now, Aug. 18, 2022, https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2022/08/forever-chemicals-destroyed-by-simple-new-method/; and Brett Chase, “Northwestern professor takes on ‘forever chemicals,’ and he just might win,” Chicago Sun-Times, Sept. 16, 2022, https://chicago.suntimes.com/2022/9/16/23353881/pfas-forever-chemicals-william-dichtel-northwestern-university-brittany-trang-teflon-scotchgard.

[21] Morris, ibid.

[22] Giangiulio, op. cit.; Chase, op. cit.; “C8 Science Panel,” updated Jan. 22, 2020, http://www.c8sciencepanel.org.

[23] Kelly Kenoyer, “North Carolina researchers have a new, tiny, and far more effective weapon to fight PFAS,” WHQR Public Media, Feb. 17, 2022, https://www.whqr.org/local/2022-02-17/north-carolina-researchers-have-a-new-more-effective-weapon-to-filter-out-pfa.

[24] Ibid.; Lisa Sorg, “PFAS found in blood samples of more than 1,000 people in Cape Fear River Basin,” NC Policy Watch, Oct. 20, 2022, https://ncpolicywatch.com/2022/10/20/pfas-found-in-blood-samples-of-more-than-1000-people-in-cape-fear-river-basin/.

[25] Chris Voloschuk, “Aclarity destroys PFAS chemicals in mobile pilot,” Waste Today, Jan. 11, 2023, https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/aclarity-destroys-pfas-chemicals-in-mobile-pilot/#:~:text=Per%2Dand%20polyfluoroalkyl%20substances%20(PFAS,at%20volume%2C%20in%20landfill%20leachate.

[26] Joseph Bednar, “Aclarity Seeks To Bring Its Unique Water-Treatment Technology To The Next Level,” Business West, Aug. 4, 2022, https://businesswest.com/blog/aclarity-seeks-to-bring-its-unique-water-treatment-technology-to-the-next-level/.

[27] Ibid.

[28] Elton, op. cit.; Weston S. Chambers, Jaida G. Hopkins and Sean M. Richards, “A Review of Per- and Polyfluorinated Alkyl Substance Impairment of Reproduction,” Frontiers in Toxicology, Nov. 22, 2021, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ftox.2021.732436/full; and “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance (PFAS),” American Water Works Association, Aug. 12, 20219, https://www.awwa.org/Portals/0/AWWA/ETS/Resources/Per-andPolyfluoroalkylSubstances(PFAS)-OverviewandPrevalence.pdf?ver=2019-08-14-090234-873.

[29] Ashwini Sakharkar, “New magnetic method to remove PFAS chemicals from water,” Tech Explorist, Jan. 23, 2023, https://www.techexplorist.com/new-magnetic-method-remove-pfas-chemicals-water/56344/.

[30] Elton, op. cit.

[31] “Battelle's PFAS Annihilator Safely Destroys PFAS in Fire Foam,” Waste Advantage, Sept. 9, 2022, https://wasteadvantagemag.com/battelles-pfas-annihilator-safely-destroys-pfas-in-fire-foam/.

[32] Erin Rhoda, “A Maine company is pioneering ways to remove PFAS,” Stars and Stripes, Sept. 6, 2022, https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-09-06/maine-company-pioneering-pfas-removal-7232158.html; Chloe Johnson, “Destroying ‘Forever Chemicals’ Is a Technological Race that Could Become a Multibillion-dollar Industry,” Inside Climate News, Feb. 6, 2023, https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06022023/forever-chemicals-pfas-destruction/.

[33] Rhoda, ibid.

[34] Johnson, op. cit.

[35] Ibid.

Go to top

Bibliography

Books

Alley, William M., and Rosemarie Alley, The War on the EPA: America's Endangered Environmental Protections, Rowman and Littlefield, 2020. A director of science and technology for the National Ground Water Association and his wife, a science writer, allege that the Trump administration attempted to destroy the Environmental Protection Agency from within; includes a chapter about weakened PFAS oversight.

Bilott, Robert, Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer's Twenty-Year Battle Against DuPont, Atria Books, 2019. The environmental attorney who uncovered PFOA contamination in West Virginia describes his 20-year court fight against chemical company DuPont.

Kempisty, David M., and LeeAnn Racz, co-editors, Forever Chemicals: Environmental, Economic, and Social Equity Concerns with PFAS in the Environment, CRC Press, 2021. Two environmental engineers edit a wide-ranging collection of essays from experts on PFAS and their implications.

Articles

Christensen, Jen, “EPA proposes first standards to make drinking water safer from ‘forever chemicals,’” CNN, March 14, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/2p8mn9bb. A health journalist outlines the federal government's new proposed safe drinking water standards for PFAS, including background about prior attempts at regulating the substances and comments from environmental groups and a water utility association.

Gleason, Patrick, “State & Federal Officials Move To Regulate & Even Ban PFAS Chemicals,” Forbes, Feb. 14, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3m2pxkrc. The vice president of State Affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, a Washington-based advocacy and policy research organization, examines criticism of proposed and existing PFAS regulations.

Goldhaber, Susan, “PFAS: Fear and Misinformation Runs Wild,” American Council on Science and Health, April 22, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/swa68rtf. A toxicologist, writing for a publication supported by the chemical industry, says reporting about alleged widespread health threats posed by PFAS is overblown.

Hayes, Jared, and Scott Faber, “For decades, the department of defense knew firefighting foams with ‘forever chemicals’ were dangerous but continued their use,” Environmental Working Group, March 6, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/y6djdb6u. The Environmental Working Group, an environmental activist organization, in collaboration with the Fountain Valley Clean Water Coalition in Colorado, publish internal military documents, dating from 1963 to 2021, concerning the use of firefighting foam, its potential harms and military inaction.

Loria, Kevin, “How PFAS Can Harm Your Health,” Consumer Reports, March 24, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/4jpyy9vc. A science and health journalist reviews data concerning possible dangerous health effects from exposure to PFAS.

Rich, Nathaniel, “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare,” The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 10, 2016, https://tinyurl.com/3x24wwpk. A journalist profiles Rob Bilott, who almost single-handedly unearthed pollution and health concerns associated with PFOA, bringing the issue to the national forefront and inspiring the 2019 film, Dark Waters, starring Mark Ruffalo as Bilott.

Winter, Deena, “There must be something in the water,” Minnesota Reformer, Dec. 15, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/5n7juyhk. In the first of a two-part series, a reporter for an independent nonprofit news organization examines internal documents from 3M that reveal what the Minnesota-based industrial products company knew about the PFAS it was dumping, and when the firm knew it.

Reports and Studies

“Analysis of State Legislation Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Materials,” Safer States, Feb. 6, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/4vvzjda6. An environmental health advocacy organization analyzes proposed state legislation, finding that 28 legislatures are considering PFAS-related actions.

“Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report,” National Science and Technology Council, March 2023, https://tinyurl.com/3uv5jj6m. A new report, prepared by more than 60 experts from 15 federal departments and agencies, outlines the current state of scientific evidence regarding the safety of PFAS, reviewing the compounds' toxicity, pathways of exposure, methods of removal and destruction and safer alternatives.

Ducatman, Alan, , et al., “Official health communications are failing PFAS-contaminated communities,” Environmental Health, May 11, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mv2m5fbn. Researchers examine government health sites to determine what PFAS information they are publishing and find that, too often, dangers to the public — especially in areas with high contamination — are downplayed.

Salvatore, Derrick , et al., “Presumptive Contamination: A New Approach to PFAS Contamination Based on Likely Sources,” Environmental Science & Technology, Oct. 12, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mr3njbrd. Northeastern University researchers say PFAS contamination is likely at three types of facilities — fire suppressant discharge sites, certain industrial facilities and sites related to PFAS-containing waste — and develop a U.S. map identifying nearly 58,000 sites presumed to be contaminated.

Videos

Burned: Protecting the Protectors, Ethereal Films, 2023, https://etherealfilms.org/burned/. A documentary film explores the health effects of PFAS found in firefighters' safety gear, produced in collaboration with Footpath Pictures, the Last Call Foundation (a Massachusetts-based firefighters' charity), the National Resources Defense Council and actor Mark Ruffalo.

The Forever Chemicals, Great Lakes Now, 2020, https://tinyurl.com/yc439n8e. A documentary produced by a Detroit public broadcasting outlet covers PFAS pollution in Michigan and its effects on residents, including Sandy Wynn-Stelt.

Go to top

The Next Step

Federal Action

Crunden, E.A., “EPA expands PFAS crackdown with Superfund proposal,” E&E News, Aug. 26, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2jh9b9ta. In one of the most dramatic steps yet taken to rein in contamination from dangerous PFAS, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed designating two of the chemicals — PFOA and PFOS — as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, known as the Superfund law, which will allow government to hold polluters accountable.

Friedman, Lisa, “E.P.A. to Designate PFAS, or ‘Forever Chemicals,’ as Hazardous,” The New York Times, Aug. 26, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/3v52xzja. A proposed EPA rule would require companies to disclose when their PFAS have contaminated water and soil and hold them liable for cleanup costs.

Trang, Brittany, “Why EPA's long-awaited proposal on two ‘forever chemicals’ is bound to be controversial,” STAT News, Dec. 21, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/ms39r458. The EPA's new drinking water standards may face backlash from water treatment plants and other groups.

Lawsuits

Mindock, Clark, “Environmental cases to watch in 2023,” Reuters, Jan. 3, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/2pvakk38. The first test case of a South Carolina class-action lawsuit goes to trial in May; the suit represents thousands of plaintiffs claiming their health suffered due to exposure to drinking water polluted with PFAS-containing firefighting foam at levels “hundreds of times” above federal advisory limits.

Perkins, Tom, “‘All-natural’ Simply Tropical juice has high toxic PFAS levels, lawsuit alleges,” The Guardian, Jan. 25, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/ymwpsams. A recent lawsuit found that Simply Tropical juice (a Coca-Cola brand) was contaminated with PFAS, despite the company claiming the product was all-natural.

Wallender, Andrew, “Companies Face Billions in Damages as PFAS Lawsuits Flood Courts,” Bloomberg Law, May 23, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/27xhaesu. As awareness of the chemicals has grown, experts say litigation could pose an existential threat to the survival of some large corporations.

Solutions

Goldstein, Bennet, “What should I do about PFAS in my water?” PBS Wisconsin, Nov. 28, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/yamkf33c. A consumer guide suggests ways Wisconsin residents can avoid water contaminated with PFAS.

Jarvis, Lisa, “Eradicating the ‘Forever’ From ‘Forever Chemicals,’” The Washington Post, Sept. 3, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/5ct6sszb. Scientists at Northwestern University have devised a method of breaking down PFAS molecules that could help rid contaminated environments of the harmful chemicals.

Zimmer, Carl, “Forever Chemicals No More? PFAS Are Destroyed With New Technique,” The New York Times, Aug. 18, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/2p8jnasa. Scientists are developing a new technique that would remove PFAS from contaminated water and soil without risking further pollution.

State Action

Bright, Zach, “PFAS Bans, Restrictions Go Into Effect in States in 2023 (1),” Bloomberg Law, Jan. 4, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/ycydmyav. As Maine bans PFAS from all products, other states continue to ban the chemicals from specific items, such as firefighting foam, food packaging and personal care goods.

Brown, Alex, “States Take on PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ With Bans, Lawsuits,” Pew Charitable Trusts, Stateline, Sept. 22, 2022, https://tinyurl.com/mr3a3knf. While awaiting EPA regulations, states are considering restrictions on PFAS, ranging from banning the chemicals in consumer products to tougher limits for the chemicals in drinking water.

Hartman, Trish, “Communities work to meet new drinking water standards in New Jersey,” 6 ABC, March 6, 2023, https://tinyurl.com/e72aef7r. New Jersey has implemented new water quality standards, which include monitoring and responding to PFAS contamination levels in drinking water.

Go to top

Contacts

American Chemistry Council
700 Second St., N.E., Washington, DC 20002
202-249-7000
americanchemistry.com
Trade group representing the chemical manufacturing industry through political advocacy, communications and scientific research.

Clean Water Action
1444 I St., N.W., Suite 400, Washington, DC 20005
202-895-0420
cleanwater.org
Environmental advocacy group that takes action to protect clean drinking water, including providing information about PFAS alternatives and preventive actions.

Environmental Protection Network
P.O. Box 42022, Washington, DC 20015
info@environmentalprotectionnetwork.org
environmentalprotectionnetwork.org
Provides expertise, information to the public and pro bono technical assistance to communities or other groups about environmental issues; membership includes more than 550 former EPA staffers.

Environmental Working Group
1250 I St., N.W., Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20005
202-667-6982
ewg.org
Environmental advocacy and research organization with offices in Minneapolis, Minn., San Francisco, Sacramento, Calif., and Washington, DC.

National Association of Clean Water Agencies
1130 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 1050, Washington, DC 20036
202-833-2672
nacwa.org
Advocacy group representing the interests of public water utilities.

National Resources Defense Council
40 West 20th St., 11th floor, New York, NY 10011
212-727-2700
nrdc.org
An environmental organization that advocates for laws and policies to protect the planet.

Safer States
503-522-6110
saferstates.org
Alliance of environmental health groups that researches and analyzes state actions on pollution issues.

Toxic-Free Future
200 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001
206-632-1545
toxicfreefuture.org
Nonprofit that advocates for safer products, chemicals and practices; provides research reports and information.

Go to top

Footnotes

[1] Pat Rizzuto, “The Doctor Will See the PFAS-Exposed Plaintiff Now,” Bloomberg Law, Oct. 26, 2021, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/the-doctor-will-see-the-pfas-exposed-plaintiff-now.

[2] Katherine Bourzac, “PFAS exposure linked to liver cancer,” Chemistry & Engineering News, Aug. 16, 2022, https://cen.acs.org/environment/persistent-pollutants/PFAS-exposure-linked-liver-cancer/100/web/2022/08; “C8 Science Panel,” http://www.c8sciencepanel.org; “What are the health effects of PFAS?” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Nov. 1, 2022, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html; Garret Ellison, “Wolverine Worldwide, 3M to pay $54M in PFAS class settlement,” MLive, Sept. 21, 2022, https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2022/09/wolverine-worldwide-3m-to-pay-54m-in-pfas-class-settlement.html.

[3] Annie Sneed, “Forever Chemicals Are Widespread in U.S. Drinking Water,” Scientific American, Jan. 22, 2021, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/forever-chemicals-are-widespread-in-u-s-drinking-water/; Tom Perkins, “Bills to regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ died in Congress — with Republican help,” The Guardian, Jan. 13, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/13/pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-republican-house?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-1; David Andrews, “INSIGHT: The Case for Regulating All PFAS Chemicals as a Class,” Bloomberg Law, May 20, 2019, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/insight-the-case-for-regulating-all-pfas-chemicals-as-a-class; “Per- and Polyfluorinated Substances (PFAS) Factsheet,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, May 2, 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/PFAS_FactSheet.html; Isabella Grullón Paz, “PFAS: The ‘Forever Chemicals’ You Couldn't Escape if You Tried,” The New York Times, April 12, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/12/us/pfas-chemicals-fast-food.html; Tom Perkins, “Most U.S. pet food contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’ study finds,” The Guardian, Nov. 3, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/02/pet-food-contamination-forever-chemicals; Leah Segedie, “Concerning Amounts of Toxic PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Tooth Floss and Dental Floss — Report,” Mamavation, Sept. 7, 2022, https://www.mamavation.com/beauty/toxic-pfas-dental-floss-tooth-floss.html; E.A. Crunden and Ariel Wittenberg, “‘Our community has been deceived’: Turf wars mount over PFAS,” E&E News, Aug. 3, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/articles/our-community-has-been-deceived-turf-wars-mount-over-pfas/; and “Fluorotechnology/Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” American Chemistry Council, https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/chemistries/fluorotechnology-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.

[4] “PFAS Explained,” Environmental Protection Agency, April 28, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained; Paz, ibid.; Alexandra Dapolito Dunn, “The Everywhere Chemicals,” The Environmental Forum, January/February 2023, https://www.eli.org/sites/default/files/files-pdf/Feature%20Article%20TEF%20Jan%202023.pdf; Sandee LaMotte, “Doctors should test levels of PFAS in people at high risk, report says,” CNN, July 28, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/health/pfas-testing-guidelines-wellness/index.html; and “Study: More Than 200 Million Americans Could Have Toxic PFAS in Their Drinking Water,” press release, Environmental Working Group, Oct. 14, 2020, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/study-more-200-million-americans-could-have-toxic-pfas-their-drinking.

[5] “C8 Science Panel,” op. cit.; “Our Current Understanding of the Human Health and Environmental Risks of PFAS,” Environmental Protection Agency, March 16, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas; “PFAS Exposure and Risk of Cancer,” National Cancer Institute, https://dceg.cancer.gov/research/what-we-study/pfas.

[6] “Analysis of State Legislation Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Materials,” Safer States, Feb. 6, 2023, https://www.saferstates.org/assets/Multistate-Analysis/2023-Multistate-Analysis-FINAL.pdf; Ludwig Burger, “EU considers ban on ‘forever chemicals,’ urges search for alternatives,” Reuters, Feb. 7, 2023, https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/eu-considers-ban-forever-chemicals-urges-search-alternatives-2023-02-07/; “Key Actions to Address PFAS,” Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 13, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas; and “Retailers committing to phase out PFAS as a class in food packaging and products,” Toxic-Free Future, https://toxicfreefuture.org/mind-the-store/retailers-committing-to-phase-out-pfas-as-a-class-in-food-packaging-and-products/.

[7] “What are PFAS?” PFAS Free, https://www.pfasfree.org.uk/about-pfas; “Wildlife warning: More than 330 species contaminated with ‘forever chemicals,’” Environmental Working Group, Feb. 22, 2023, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/2023/02/wildlife-warning-more-330-species-contaminated-forever-chemicals.

[8] Justine Calma, “Facing mounting legal battles, 3M quits forever chemicals,” The Verge, Dec. 20, 2022, https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/20/23518630/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas-phase-out.

[9] “Immunotoxicity Associated with Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) or Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS),” National Toxicology Program, Department of Health and Human Services, updated June 4, 2021, https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/completed/pfoa/index.html.

[10] “Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), and Related Chemicals,” American Cancer Society, July 28, 2022, https://www.cancer.org/healthy/cancer-causes/chemicals/teflon-and-perfluorooctanoic-acid-pfoa.html.

[11] Sharon Lerner, “New Teflon Toxin Causes Cancer in Lab Animals,” The Intercept, March 3, 2016, https://theintercept.com/2016/03/03/new-teflon-toxin-causes-cancer-in-lab-animals/.

[12] Jared Hayes, “For decades, polluters knew PFAS chemicals were dangerous, but hid risks from public,” Environmental Working Group, Aug. 29, 2019, https://www.ewg.org/research/decades-polluters-knew-pfas-chemicals-were-dangerous-hid-risks-public.

[13] “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Launches Plan to Combat PFAS Pollution,” press release, White House, Oct. 18, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/10/18/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-launches-plan-to-combat-pfas-pollution/; Rachel Frazin, “EPA watchdog knocks Trump officials over weakened assessment for toxic chemical,” The Hill, March 7, 2023, https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/3888160-epa-watchdog-knocks-trump-officials-over-weakened-assessment-for-toxic-chemical/.

[14] Timothy Puko, “EPA proposes rules to limit ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water,” The Washington Post, March 14, 2023, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2023/03/14/epa-drinking-water-regulations-pfas/; “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Action to Protect Communities from PFAS Pollution,” press release, White House, March 14, 2023, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/03/14/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-new-action-to-protect-communities-from-pfas-pollution/.

[15] “Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),” The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last reviewed Sept. 15, 2022, https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/pfas/default.html; “Workers exposed to PFAS in a variety of industries,” Environmental Health News, May 16, 2022, https://www.ehn.org/pfas-in-workers-2657293887.html.

[16] Tom Costello and Aria Bendix, “Firefighter Gear Posing Cancer Risk?” NBC News, Aug. 24, 2022, https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/firefighter-gear-may-contain-chemicals-linked-cancer-rcna44511.

[17] “Documentary Sounds the Alarm on PFAS in Turnout Gear,” press release, International Association of Fire Fighters, Jan. 31, 2023, https://www.iaff.org/news/documentary-sounds-the-alarm-on-pfas-in-turnout-gear/.

[18] “PFAS AFFF MDL Moves Forward With Bellwether Trial Chosen,” The National Law Review, Sept. 15, 2022, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/pfas-afff-mdl-moves-forward-bellwether-trial-chosen.

[19] Charles Duncan, “600,000 U.S. troops may have been exposed to toxic ‘forever chemicals’ on bases, report finds,” Spectrum News, Dec. 15, 2022, https://spectrumlocalnews.com/nc/charlotte/environment/2022/12/15/600-000-u-s--troops-may-have-been-exposed-to-toxic--forever-chemicals--on-bases--report-finds.

[20] “PFAS Exposure and Risk of Cancer,” op. cit.

[21] Jeffrey Kluger, “Now We Need to Worry About Harmful ‘Forever Chemicals’ in Our Toilet Paper Too,” Time, March 2, 2023, https://time.com/6259819/pfas-found-in-toilet-paper/.

[22] Alan Ducatman et al., op. cit.

[23] Ibid.

[24] “American Council on Science and Health (ACSH),” Greenpeace, https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/climate-deniers/front-groups/american-council-on-science-and-health-acsh/.

[25] Susan Goldhaber, “PFAS: Fear And Misinformation Runs Wild,” American Council on Science and Health, April 22, 2022, https://www.acsh.org/news/2022/04/22/pfas-fear-and-misinformation-runs-wild-16263.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Nicole Marie Brennan et al., “Trends in the Regulation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): A Scoping Review,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, October 2021, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8536021/.

[28] “PFAS in the US Population,” Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Dec. 22, 2022, https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html.

[29] Paz, op. cit.

[30] “PFAS in Products,” Maine Department of Environmental Protection, updated Dec. 30, 2022, https://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/topics/pfas/PFAS-products/index.html.

[31] Vivien Leigh, “Toxic disaster of PFAS contamination a nightmare for Maine farmers,” News Center Maine, April 14, 2022, https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/tech/science/environment/pfas/maine-farmers-struggle-to-survive-pfas-contamination-environment-clean/97-592b50b4-8efa-487a-ac10-30a7766992ad; Tom Perkins, “Maine bans use of sewage sludge on farms to reduce risk of PFAS poisoning,” The Guardian, May 12, 2022, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/may/12/maine-bans-sewage-sludge-fertilizer-farms-pfas-poisoning.

[32] Michael Booth, “Colorado attorney general sues makers of firefighting foam that uses ‘forever chemicals’ threatening drinking water,” The Colorado Sun, Feb. 28, 2022, https://coloradosun.com/2022/02/28/colorado-attorney-general-sues-firefighting-pfas-makers/; Michael Booth, “Colorado may have more sites with dangerous ‘forever chemicals’ than any other state,” The Colorado Sun, Oct. 17, 2021, https://coloradosun.com/2021/10/17/pfas-forever-chemicals-colorado/.

[33] Sharon Udasin, “Colorado legislature passes bill banning ‘forever chemicals’ in products,” The Hill, May 12, 2022, https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/3486347-colorado-legislature-passes-bill-banning-forever-chemicals-in-products/; “Gov. Polis signs most comprehensive state law in nation restricting PFAS,” Earthjustice, June 3, 2022, https://earthjustice.org/press/2022/gov-polis-signs-most-comprehensive-state-law-in-nation-restricting-pfas.

[34] “California Governor signs first-in-nation ban on PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ in textiles,” Safer States, Sept. 30, 2022, https://www.saferstates.org/news/california-governor-signs-first-in-nation-ban-on-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-textiles/; “Analysis of State Legislation Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Materials,” op. cit.

[35] “H.R. 2467 — PFAS Action Act of 2021,” Congress.gov, https://tinyurl.com/yud7avc3.

[36] Perkins, “Bills to regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ died in Congress — with Republican help,” op. cit.

[37] J.D. Hayworth, “Our military shouldn't be held hostage to ‘water politics,’” The Hill, Oct. 19, 2021, https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/576628-our-military-shouldnt-be-held-hostage-to-water-politics/.

[38] Perkins, “Bills to regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ died in Congress — with Republican help,” op. cit.

[39] Andrews, op. cit.

[40] “Updated DOD standards: Critical first step toward firefighting foam made without ‘forever chemicals,’” Environmental Working Group, Jan. 12, 2023, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2023/01/updated-dod-standards-critical-first-step-toward-firefighting; Jesse Roman, “The New Foam,” NFPA Journal (National Fire Protection Association), July 22, 2022, https://www.nfpa.org/News-and-Research/Publications-and-media/NFPA-Journal/2022/Fall-2022/Features/Foam.

[41] “PFAS FAQ,” Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Energy, Installations and Environment), https://www.secnav.navy.mil/eie/Pages/home.aspx.

[42] Roman, op. cit.

[43] Juliane Glüge et al., “Information Requirements under the Essential-Use Concept: PFAS Case Studies,” Environmental Science & Technology, Oct. 5, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c03732.

[44] Ibid.

[45] Steffen Schellenberger et al., “Highly fluorinated chemicals in functional textiles can be replaced by re-evaluating liquid repellency and end-user requirements,” Journal of Cleaner Production, April 20, 2019, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652619301799.

[46] “Medical Devices Fact Sheet,” Chemours, https://tinyurl.com/y8ab7a83.

[47] Bella Isaacs-Thomas, “Why getting PFAS out of our products is so hard — and why it matters,” PBS, Sept. 29, 2022, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/pfas-are-everywhere-what-can-we-do-to-change-that.

[48] Ian T. Cousins et al., “Finding essentiality feasible: common questions and misinterpretations concerning the ‘essential-use’ concept,” Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, June 23, 2021, https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2021/em/d1em00180a.

[49] “The History of Teflon Fluoropolymers,” Teflon, https://www.teflon.com/en/news-events/history; Robert Bilott with Tom Shroder, Exposure (2019), pp. 56-57.

[50] Ibid.; Bilott and Shroder, ibid., pp. 57-58.

[51] Michael DiGiannantonio, “A Legal History of PFAS,” Water Finance & Management, Aug. 8, 2022, https://waterfm.com/a-legal-history-of-pfas/; Bilott and Shroder, ibid.; “Teflon — History of Teflon,” Soft Schools, https://www.softschools.com/inventions/history/teflon_history/175/.

[52] Amy Linn, “Toxic timeline: A brief history of PFAS,” Searchlight New Mexico, Feb. 19, 2019, https://searchlightnm.org/toxic-timeline-a-brief-history-of-pfas/.

[53] Ibid.; “USS Forrestal,” Naval Sea Systems Command DC Museum, https://web.archive.org/web/20080207074706/http://www.dcfp.navy.mil/mc/museum/FORRESTAL/Forrestal1.htm; Rachel Ross, “What Are PFAS?” Live Science, April 30, 2019, https://www.livescience.com/65364-pfas.

[54] Linn, ibid.

[55] Sharon Lerner, “3M Knew About the Dangers of PFOA and PFOS Decades Ago, Internal Documents Show,” The Intercept, July 31, 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/.

[56] Brittany Trang, “Why EPA's long-awaited proposal on two ‘forever chemicals’ is bound to be controversial,” Stat News, Dec. 21, 2022, https://www.statnews.com/2022/12/21/forever-chemicals-pfas-epa-drinking-water/.

[57] DiGiannantonio, op. cit.

[58] Ibid.

[59] Nathaniel Rich, “The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare,” The New York Times Magazine, Jan. 6, 2016, https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html; DiGiannantonio, op. cit.

[60] Ron Carucci, “Leadership Lessons From Rob Bilott's 20 Year Battle For Justice Against DuPont,” Forbes, July 12, 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/roncarucci/2021/07/12/leadership-lessons-from-rob-bilotts-20-year-battle-for-justice-against-dupont/?sh=52dd12960552; Rich, ibid.

[61] “C8 Science Panel,” op. cit.; Hayes, op. cit.; and Kevin Loria, “How PFAS Can Harm Your Health,” Consumer Reports, March 24, 2022, https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/how-pfas-can-harm-your-health-a6737335634/.

[62] “Judge OKs $107.6 million DuPont settlement,” NBC News, Feb. 28, 2005, https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna7047037.

[63] Kyle Steenland et al., “Review: Evolution of evidence on PFOA and health following the assessments of the C8 Science Panel,” Environment International, December 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412020320808.

[64] “Introduction,” U.S. District Court Southern District of Ohio MDL & Case Information for MDL 2433, https://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/MDLINTRO.

[65] Garret Ellison, “3M document shows Wolverine knew about PFAS in 1999,” MLive, Nov. 4, 2017, https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2017/11/3m_scotchgard_wolverine_pfas.html.

[66] David Barboza, “E.P.A. Says It Pressed 3M For Action on Scotchgard Chemical,” The New York Times, May 19, 2000, https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/19/business/epa-says-it-pressed-3m-for-action-on-scotchgard-chemical.html; “EPA Settles Case Involving 3M Voluntary Disclosures of Toxic Substances Violations,” Environmental Protection Agency, April 25, 2006, https://www.epa.gov/archive/epapages/newsroom_archive/newsreleases/440f8e8e3e28707e8525715b007186f7.html; and Sharon Lerner, “PFOA And PFOS Are Only The Best Known Members Of A Very Dangerous Class Of Chemicals,” The Intercept, Feb. 10, 2018, https://theintercept.com/2018/02/10/pfos-pfoa-epa-chemical-contamination/.

[67] “DuPont says US not pursuing PFOA criminal charges,” Reuters, Oct. 15, 2007, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-dupont-doj/dupont-says-u-s-not-pursuing-pfoa-criminal-charges-idUSN1537827620071015.

[68] Juliet Eilperin, “DuPont, EPA Settle Chemical Complaint,” The Washington Post, Dec. 15, 2005, https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/2005/12/15/dupont-epa-settle-chemical-complaint/7d2666e7-666e-4ceb-b707-cc98230fcd0a/; DiGiannantonio, op. cit.

[69] “Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program,” Environmental Protection Agency, updated April 26, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program; “Drinking Water Health Advisories for GenX Chemicals and PFBS,” Environmental Protection Agency, updated June 30, 2022, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/drinking-water-health-advisories-genx-chemicals-and-pfbs.

[70] Bilott and Schroder, op. cit., p. 273.

[71] “PFAS: The water contaminant that scientists say isn't going away,” CBS News, Aug. 21, 2022, https://www.cbsnews.com/video/forever-chemicals-the-threat-of-pfas-in-our-water/#x.

[72] DiGiannantonio, op. cit.

[73] Mark Scialla, “What are PFASs, the toxic chemical being found in drinking water?” PBS, Aug. 12, 2016, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/pfas-toxic-chemical-millions-peoples-drinking-water.

[74] Andrews, op. cit.

[75] “Fact Sheet: PFOA & PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories,” Environmental Protection Agency, November 2016, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-06/documents/drinkingwaterhealthadvisories_pfoa_pfos_updated_5.31.16.pdf.

[76] “Our updated chemical safety law: The Lautenberg Act,” Environmental Defense Fund, https://www.edf.org/health/our-updated-chemical-safety-law-lautenberg-act.

[77] Ross, op. cit.

[78] “Rep. Kildee: One Year After EPA PFAS Action Plan, Trump administration still failing to address toxic chemicals,” press release, Rep. Dan Kildee, House of Representatives, Feb. 14, 2020, https://dankildee.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-kildee-one-year-after-epa-pfas-action-plan-trump-administration-still.

[79] “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Launches Plan to Combat PFAS Pollution,” op. cit.

[80] DiGiannantonio, op. cit.

[81] Perkins, “Bills to regulate toxic ‘forever chemicals’ died in Congress — with Republican help,” op. cit.; Sharon Udasin, “House passes bill requiring EPA to regulate ‘forever chemicals’ in drinking water,” The Hill, July 21, 2021, https://thehill.com/policy/equilibrium-sustainability/564185-house-passes-bill-requiring-epa-regulate-forever-chemicals/.

[82] Perkins, ibid.

[83] George G. Misko, “Navigating U.S. Federal and State Regulation of PFAS in Applications Involving Food,” Food Safety Magazine, Oct. 11, 2022, https://www.food-safety.com/articles/8052-navigating-us-federal-and-state-regulation-of-pfas-in-applications-involving-food.

[84] “PFAS,” Safer States, https://www.saferstates.com/toxic-chemicals/pfas/; “PFAS in Products,” op. cit.

[85] “At UN meeting, governments agree to a global ban on PFOA — a toxic water pollutant,” International Pollutants Elimination Network, May 3, 2019, https://ipen.org/news/un-meeting-governments-agree-global-ban-pfoa---toxic-water-pollutant.

[86] Katie Hunt, “Denmark just became the first country to ban PFAS ‘forever chemicals’ from food packaging,” CNN, Sept. 4, 2019, https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/04/health/denmark-pfas-food-packaging-ban-intl/index.html.

[87] Ginger Hervey, “Global ban on PFOA enters into force for most countries,” Chemical Watch, Dec. 9, 2020, https://chemicalwatch.com/189390/global-ban-on-pfoa-enters-into-force-for-most-countries.

[88] “PFAS,” Safer States, op. cit.

[89] Shannon E. McClure, Jennifer A. Smokelin and Casey J. Synder, “Litigation over ‘forever chemicals’ is growing: Is your company the next defendant?” Reuters, Dec. 7, 2022, https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/litigation-over-forever-chemicals-is-growing-is-your-company-next-defendant-2022-12-07/.

[90] Deena Winter, “Toxic: 3M knew its chemicals were harmful decades ago, but didn't tell the public, government,” Minnesota Reformer, Dec. 15, 2022, https://minnesotareformer.com/2022/12/15/toxic-3m-knew-its-chemicals-were-harmful-decades-ago-but-didnt-tell-the-public-government/; Trang, op. cit.

[91] “USA: DuPont settles 3550 claims over illnesses linked to pollution for $671 million,” Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, Feb. 13, 2017, https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/latest-news/usa-dupont-settles-3550-claims-over-illnesses-linked-to-pollution-for-671-million/.

[92] “AFFF Litigation Paving the Way for National PFAS Litigation,” Chicago-Kent Journal of Environmental and Energy Law, Dec. 15, 2021, https://studentorgs.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckjeel/2021/12/15/afff-litigation-paving-the-way-for-national-pfas-litigation/; “MDL Statistics Report — Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District,” United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, Feb. 16, 2023, https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-February-16-2023.pdf; and Andrew Wallender “Companies Face Billions in Damages as PFAS Lawsuits Flood Courts,” Bloomberg Law, May 23, 2022, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pfas-project/companies-face-billions-in-damages-as-pfas-lawsuits-flood-courts.

[93] Ibid.

[94] E.A. Crunden, “EPA faces new lawsuit over ‘forever chemicals,’” E&E News, Aug. 1, 2022, https://www.eenews.net/articles/epa-faces-new-lawsuit-over-forever-chemicals/; Samantha Hawkins, “EPA Beats Challenge to PFAS Advisory Levels in Appellate Win,” Bloomberg Law, Jan. 25, 2023, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/epa-beats-challenge-to-pfas-advisory-levels-in-appellate-win.

[95] McClure, Smokelin and Synder, op. cit.; Rachel Treisman, “Thinx settled a lawsuit over chemicals in its period underwear. Here's what to know,” NPR, Jan. 19, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/01/19/1150023002/thinx-period-underwear-lawsuit-settlement.

[96] Kevin Loria, “Dangerous PFAS Chemicals Are in Your Food Packaging,” Consumer Reports, March 24, 2022, https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dangerous-pfas-chemicals-are-in-your-food-packaging-a3786252074/; Chrissy Callahan, “McDonald's and Burger King are sued for use of ‘forever chemicals’ in packaging,” Today, updated April 20, 2022, https://www.today.com/food/restaurants/mcdonalds-burger-king-sued-forever-chemicals-pfas-packaging-rcna24991; and Lisa Jennings, “McDonald's and Burger King sued in attempted class-actions tied to ‘forever chemicals’ in packaging,” Nation's Restaurant News, April 15, 2022, https://www.nrn.com/quick-service/mcdonald-s-and-burger-king-sued-attempted-class-actions-tied-forever-chemicals.

[97] Allyson Chiu and Brady Dennis, “3M will stop making dangerous ‘forever chemicals,’” The Washington Post, Dec. 20, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2022/12/20/3m-forever-chemicals-pfas/; Ed Hammond, Tiffany Kary and Ryan Beene, “3M to Stop Producing PFAS ‘Forever Chemicals’ by End of 2025,” Bloomberg Law, Dec. 20, 2022, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/3m-will-stop-producing-forever-chemical-pfas-by-end-of-2025.

[98] Bob Tita, “‘Forever Chemicals’ Maker Defends Their Use, Says It Will Keep Producing Them,” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 14, 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/forever-chemicals-maker-defends-their-use-says-it-will-keep-producing-them-5fb550f1.

[99] “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Takes New Action to Protect Communities from PFAS Pollution,” op. cit.

[100] Andrew Farr, “EPA to ‘aggressively confront’ PFAS with first-ever proposed standard,” Water Finance & Management, March 14, 2023, https://waterfm.com/epa-to-aggressively-confront-pfas-with-first-ever-proposed-standard/; “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation,” Environmental Protection Agency, March 14, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.

[101] Farr, ibid.; Lisa Friedman, “Biden Administration to Restrict Cancer-Causing ‘Forever Chemicals,” The New York Times, March 14, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/14/climate/epa-water-pfas-chemicals.html; Puko, op. cit.

[102] “ACC Comments on MCL Proposal,” American Chemistry Council press release, March 14, 2023, https://www.americanchemistry.com/chemistry-in-america/news-trends/press-release/2023/acc-comments-on-mcl-proposal.

[103] “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS): Proposed PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation,” op. cit.

[104] “Delays threaten Biden administration's promise to tackle ‘forever chemicals,’” Environmental Working Group, Feb. 9, 2023, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2023/02/delays-threaten-biden-administrations-promise-tackle-forever.

[105] Trang, op. cit.; “Letter to President Biden,” U.S. Senate, Feb. 2, 2022, https://www.shaheen.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2-2-22%20Letter%20to%20President%20Biden%20re%20PFAS%20in%20the%20FY2023%20Budget%20Request.pdf.

[106] “Analysis of State Legislation Addressing Toxic Chemicals and Materials,” op. cit.; “New analysis: PFAS ‘forever chemical’ policies will dominate in states nationwide in 2023,” press release, Safer States, Feb. 6, 2023, https://www.saferstates.com/news/new-analysis-pfas-forever-chemical-policies-will-dominate-in-states-nationwide-in-2023/.

[107] “Attorney General Raoul Files Lawsuit Against Multiple Manufacturers Over Contamination by Toxic ‘Forever Chemicals,’” press release, Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, Feb. 1, 2023, https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/pressroom/2023_02/20230201.html.

[108] Tom Perkins, “‘All-natural’ Simply Tropical juice has high toxic PFAS levels, lawsuit alleges,” The Guardian, Jan. 25, 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/19/simply-orange-juice-coca-cola-pfas-class-action-lawsuit.

[109] Pat Rizzuto, “‘Staggering’ Impact Foreseen on US Firms From EU PFAS Ban,” Bloomberg Law, Feb. 14, 2023, https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/staggering-impacts-on-us-companies-predicted-from-eu-pfas-ban.

[110] “Groundbreaking map shows toxic ‘forever chemicals’ in more than 330 wildlife species,” Environmental Working Group, Feb. 22, 2023, https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news-release/2023/02/groundbreaking-map-shows-toxic-forever-chemicals-more-330.

[111] Catrin Einhorn, “How Widespread Are These Toxic Chemicals? They're Everywhere,” The New York Times, Feb. 22, 2023, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/22/climate/pfas-forever-chemicals-wildlife-animals.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=US%20News.

Go to top

About the Author

Lorna Collier has written about business, technology and other topics for AARP Bulletin, U.S. News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, Discover and others. She has reported about universal basic income, college debt, COVID-19's impact on mental health and the pandemic's effect on Hollywood for CQ Researcher.

Go to top