As states continue to take action against products containing PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals,’ the chemical and consumer products industries are pushing back with lawyers and lobbyists. The debate over the safety of these chemicals is heating up, with advocates calling for permanent bans and industry groups arguing that regulations are too broad.
The Debate Over Forever Chemicals in Consumer Products
As states continue to take action against products containing PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals,’ the chemical and consumer products industries are pushing back with lawyers and lobbyists.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of synthetic chemicals widely used in consumer products, industrial processes, and firefighting foam.
PFAS have been linked to various health concerns, including cancer, thyroid disease, and reproductive issues.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set non-enforceable health advisories for two common PFAS compounds: PFOA and PFOS.
Despite growing awareness of their risks, many industries continue to use PFAS due to their effectiveness in repelling water and oil.
In 2021, ‘I was shocked to discover that a fabric protectant used in furniture stores contained forever chemicals’ said James Kenney, New Mexico’s Environment Department cabinet secretary. This experience sparked legislation aimed at protecting consumers in his state.
New Mexico is now the third state to pass a PFAS ban through its legislature, joining a growing list of states taking action against these chemicals. Ten other states have bans or limits on added PFAS in certain consumer products, including cookware, carpet, apparel, and cosmetics.
The chemical industry has responded with force, lobbying state legislatures to advocate for the safety of their products. In one case, they sued to prevent a law from taking effect.
PFAS is not just one chemical but a class of thousands developed in the 1930s due to their nonstick properties and durability. The chemicals were soon omnipresent in American lives, coating cookware, preventing furniture and carpets from staining, and acting as a surfactant in firefighting foam.
However, mounting research has shown that PFAS accumulate in the environment and in our bodies, leading to health problems such as high cholesterol, reproductive issues, and cancer. Despite this, the federal government has lagged behind the science when it comes to regulations.
The FDA has authorized nonstick cookware for human use since the 1960s. Some research found that ‘fluoropolymers are safe to consume and less harmful than other types of PFAS’ while separate research called their safety into question.
Industry groups argue that states are defining PFAS chemicals too broadly, opening the door to overregulation of safe products. They claim that fluoropolymers are very different from PFAS chemicals of concern and should be exempt from bans.
However, advocates disagree, citing concerns around the use of forever chemicals in the production of fluoropolymers as well as their durability throughout their life cycles. ‘Fluoropolymers are PFAS,’ they claim. ‘PFAS plastics are PFAS. They are dangerous at every stage of their life, from production to use to disposal.’
The debate highlights the challenges states face in truly getting PFAS out of consumers’ lives. Vendors have been left with expensive inventory that can no longer be sold, and exemptions for certain uses make it difficult to phase out these chemicals altogether.
As the industry pushes back against state regulations, advocates are determined to spur the search for safer alternatives. ‘There might be essential uses for PFAS right now,’ they say. ‘But we want to remove that incentive.’
