More states ban PFAS, or 鈥榝orever chemicals,鈥 in more products (copy)
Legislative momentum against PFAS has surged this year, as at least 11 states enacted laws to restrict the use of 鈥渇orever chemicals鈥 in everyday consumer products or professional firefighting foam.
The legislation includes bans on PFAS in apparel, cleaning products, cookware and cosmetic and menstrual products. Meanwhile, lawmakers in some states also passed measures that require industries to pay for testing or cleanup; order companies to disclose the use of PFAS in their products; and mandate or encourage the development of PFAS alternatives, according to Safer States, an alliance of environmental health groups focused on toxic chemicals.
At least 16 states adopted 22 PFAS-related measures this year, according to the group. Since 2007, 30 states have approved 155 PFAS policies, the vast majority of them in the past five years.
The thousands of chemicals categorized as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, do not naturally break down and are found in the blood of 97% of Americans. Some PFAS compounds can harm the immune system, increase cancer risks and decrease fertility.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released new standards limiting PFAS in drinking water. Water systems have five years to comply with the rules. Even before the EPA action, 11 states had set their own limits on PFAS in drinking water, starting with New Jersey in 2018.
Water utilities and chemical manufacturers are challenging the new EPA standards. But states also are heading to the courthouse: Thirty states have sued PFAS manufacturers or key users for contaminating water supplies and other natural resources, according to Safer States.
鈥淥ver the past two decades, the knowledge of PFAS health effects has really exploded,鈥 said Jamie DeWitt, a professor of environmental molecular toxicology at Oregon State University.
鈥淲e now know that they鈥檙e linked with different types of cancer, suppression of the vaccine antibody response, liver damage, elevated cholesterol and developmental effects,鈥 said DeWitt, who is also director of the university鈥檚 Environmental Health Sciences Center.
But the chemical industry and some companies that use PFAS in their products contend states are going too far. PFAS compounds have properties that make them nonstick, stain-repellent, waterproof or fire-resistant. In addition to being used in everyday consumer goods, they are critical to renewable energy, health care and electronics, defenders say.
鈥淧FAS are a diverse universe of chemistries. They have differing health and environmental profiles. It is not scientifically accurate or appropriate to treat all PFAS the same,鈥 Tom Flanagin, a spokesperson from the American Chemistry Council, said in an email.
鈥淐onsumers should also know that PFAS chemistries in commerce today have been reviewed by regulators before introduction, are subject to ongoing review, and are supported by a robust body of health and safety data.鈥
In California, which has enacted 19 PFAS-related laws since 2007, the state Chamber of Commerce 鈥渙pposes any blanket ban on all commercial products containing PFAS,鈥 according to Adam Regele, vice president of advocacy and strategic partnerships. There are more than 15,000 chemicals in the PFAS category, Regele said, and there aren鈥檛 viable alternatives for all of them.
Scott Whitaker, president and CEO of AdvaMed, a trade association representing medical technology companies, told a congressional committee last year that 鈥渋t is hard to imagine the medical industry without the many important products that contain fluoropolymers,鈥 a type of PFAS.
Whitaker noted that continuous positive airway pressure, or CPAP, machines, prosthetics, IV bags, surgical instruments and many other medical products contain PFAS.
The semiconductor industry also has expressed concern about far-reaching bans on PFAS, which it uses to manufacture computer chips. It wants exceptions to the new rules as well as time to develop alternatives.
But Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, said one reason states have been so successful in enacting PFAS limits is that more companies are willing to stop using the chemicals.
鈥淲hen California restricted PFAS in textiles, all of a sudden you saw companies like REI saying, 鈥榃e can, we鈥檙e going to do that. We鈥檙e going to move to alternatives,鈥欌 Doll said.
In Vermont, state lawmakers in April unanimously approved a measure banning the manufacture and sale of PFAS in cosmetics, menstrual products, incontinence products, artificial turf, textiles and cookware.
鈥淭he same as everyone else, like Democrats, we want to make sure that we remove PFAS and get it out of products as soon as we can,鈥 said Republican state Rep. Michael Marcotte, who said his Vermont district includes cosmetics manufacturer Rozelle Cosmetics, in Westfield.
Democratic state Sen. Virginia Lyons, the chief sponsor of the Vermont bill, said it is particularly important to get PFAS out of products that are essential to consumers.
鈥淭here are some consumer products where you can say, 鈥業 don鈥檛 need to buy that, because I don鈥檛 want PFAS,鈥欌 Lyons said. 鈥淏ut it鈥檚 really tough to say that (about) a menstrual product.鈥
California鈥檚 latest PFAS measure, which Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last month, specifically bans the use of PFAS in menstrual products. Democratic Assemblymember Diane Papan, the author of the bill, said it was particularly strong because it covers both intentional and unintentional uses of PFAS, so 鈥渕anufacturers will have to really be careful about what comes in their supply chain.鈥
