A group of respected international scientists have warned against changing the definition of PFAS.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or “Forever Chemicals”, are man-made substances that have useful water-, stain-, and oil-resistant properties. However, they face increasing scrutiny due to their link with serious health problems and environmental pollution. Now, attempts are being made to narrow the definition of PFAS in order to reduce the impact of proposed regulations.
Why are PFAS so important?
PFAS have been widely used since the 1950s, and actually date back to the 1930s. Originally, they were viewed as miraculous substances thanks to their unique properties. They made fabrics waterproof, stain-resistant and greaseproof. They were resistant to high temperatures. They could make extremely low-friction bearings. Firefighting foams often contained large quantities. However, by the 1980s and 1990s, major concerns were raised as more and more cases of environmental pollution were exposed. More recently, studies have linked PFAS with serious human health issues including cancer, premature birth, and impotence. Nowadays, consumer goods often go out of their way to advertise themselves as “PFAS Free”.
What regulations are being proposed?
This mounting evidence that PFAS are harmful to health and the environment led to pressure to impose restrictions. Initially, attention focused on a couple of specific compounds, PFOA and PFOS. These were some of the earliest PFAS compounds, and were used both in manufacturing and in consumer products. Both compounds are now included in the IARC’s list of carcinogens, and are banned by the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs).
Within the US there have been repeated attempts at the State and Federal level to impose limits on these and related compounds in drinking water. Globally, there have been increasing efforts to extend these bans to larger groups of PFAS compounds. For instance, PFAS compounds with 9-14 carbon atoms are now restricted in the EU. But all these attempts have faced strong opposition from the chemical industry.
What is the reaction to these regulations?
Industry body, the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC), is among those pushing to narrow the accepted definition of PFAS. The aim is to exclude several groups of PFAS chemicals from the definition. In turn, that will allow these chemicals to avoid the increasing regulatory burden facing PFAS.
Changing the goal posts around PFAS is nothing new: a core claim of the class action lawsuit against GoreTex is that they used a very narrow definition of PFAS when claiming their products were safe for the environment. However, that was one company’s marketing. What we’re looking at now is an attempt to change the international definition of this whole family of harmful chemicals.
Where’s the money?
If you want to understand what’s driving this, you just need to follow the money. In this case that’s quite easy. PFAS are an incredibly lucrative part of the chemical industry, worth billions of dollars a year. They have become an essential part of many manufacturing processes as well as being integral to many products. As a result, they are found throughout our homes, in our electronics and rechargeable batteries, even in clinical instruments and medical implants. In most cases, there are no alternatives that perform as well. In many other cases, the alternatives are simply different forms of PFAS with perceived lower environmental and health risks. But if the compounds were banned, industry would have to come up with new solutions fast.
Why is changing the definition a problem?
If IUPAC and others have their way, the current definition of PFAS will be narrowed significantly. However, in a joint paper published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, a group of respected scientists hit back. They support the current OECD definition of PFAS, formally adopted in 2021. This definition was designed to address the confusion and mixed messaging around PFAS.
In their letter, the 20 widely-respected scientists warn:
“An IUPAC-endorsed and potentially narrower PFAS definition could confer undue legitimacy … and influence regulatory bodies and others to adopt less protective policies.”
Their concern is that narrowing and changing the definition of PFAS will impact current efforts to regulate these compounds. Specifically, it will enable more and more compounds to evade regulation through subtle changes in their molecular structure. The problem here is that evidence suggests the fundamental structure of PFAS compounds is what causes harm. Specifically, the way they mimic compounds in the human body, and their extreme durability in the environment.
What’s next?
Globally, there are multiple efforts to regulate PFAS. Under the previous administration, the EPA was at the forefront of these efforts. However, under the current administration, it’s incredibly difficult to guess what will happen next. There is a marked tension between a desire to relax or remove regulation, coupled with some administration members’ life-long antipathy to manmade drugs, chemicals, and toxins. The only thing that is certain in all this is that PFAS will remain on the political agenda for years to come.
