Congressional speed against PFAS has surged this time, as at least 11 states , enacted laws , to limit the use of “forever compounds” in everyday consumer items or specialized fire foaming.
The policy includes prohibitions on PFAS in clothes, cleaning products, kitchenware, and plastic and menstrual products. According to Safer States, an ally of environmental health organizations focused on toxic chemicals, politicians in some states have passed legislation that requires companies to pay for tests or recovery, require companies to disclose the use of PFAS in their products, and sanction or encourage the development of PFAS alternatives.
In full this month,  , at least 16 says adopted 22 PFAS-related measures, according to the team. Since 2007, 30 says have approved , 155 PFAS laws, the vast majority of them in the past five years.
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are two of the countless chemicals that are found in 97 % of Americans ‘ bloodstreams. Some PFAS ingredients may damage the immune system, lead to higher cancer risks, and lower reproduction.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released new requirements earlier this year that would apply to PFAS in drinking water. Water methods have five times to abide by the regulations. Even before the EPA activity,  , 11 states , had set their own restrictions on PFAS in drinking waters, starting with New Jersey in 2018.
Liquid resources and chemical companies are  , challenging the new EPA requirements. But state even are heading to the court: But way,  , 30 says have sued , PFAS companies or key customers for contaminating water supplies and other natural resources, according to Safer States.
” Over the past two years, the awareness of PFAS health effects has actually exploded”, Jamie DeWitt, a professor of environmental chemical chemistry at Oregon State University, told Stateline.
” We now know that they’re linked with different types of cancer, destruction of the vaccination antibodies response, liver damage, elevated cholesterol and development results”, said DeWitt, who is also chairman of the school’s Environmental Health Sciences Center.
However, states are going too far, claim the chemical industry and some PFAS-using businesses. 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.
” PFAS are a diverse universe of chemistries. They have distinct environmental and health profiles. It is not appropriate or scientific to treat all PFAS the same, according to Tom Flanagin, a spokesman for the American Chemistry Council, in an email to Stateline.
Consumers should also be aware that PFAS chemistries in today’s markets have been reviewed by regulators before being introduced, are currently being reviewed, and are supported by a robust body of health and safety data.
In California, which has enacted 19 PFAS-related laws since 2007, the state Chamber of Commerce “opposes any blanket ban on all commercial products containing PFAS”, 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 are n’t 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 “it is hard to imagine the medical industry without the many important products that contain fluoropolymers”, a type of PFAS. Whitaker noted that 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 time to develop alternatives and changes to the new regulations.
However, Sarah Doll, Safer States ‘ national director, claimed that more businesses are willing to stop using the chemicals as one factor in why states have been so successful in enacting PFAS limits.
” When California restricted PFAS in textiles, all of a sudden you saw companies like REI saying,’ We can, we’re going , to do that. We’re going to move to alternatives,'” 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.
” The 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”, said Vermont Republican state Rep. Michael Marcotte, who said his district includes cosmetics manufacturer Rozelle Cosmetics, in Westfield.
The Vermont bill’s chief sponsor, Democratic state senator Virginia Lyons, said it is crucial to remove PFAS from products that are essential to consumers.
” There are some consumer products where you can say,’ I do n’t need to buy that, because I do n’t want PFAS,'” Lyons said. ” But it’s really tough to say that ]about ] a menstrual product”.
California ‘s , latest PFAS measure, which Democratic Gov. The contract that Gary Newsom signed last month specifically forbids the use of PFAS in menstrual products. The bill’s author, Democratic Assemblymember Diane Papan, said it was particularly strong because it covers both PFAS-related unintentional and intentional uses, so “manufacturers will have to be really careful about what comes in their supply chain.”
Maine is preparing to implement the first PFAS ban that applies to all consumer goods, while more states pass laws that focus on specific products. The Maine law, which is scheduled to take effect in 2030, will include exceptions for “essential” products for which PFAS-free alternatives do not exist. In addition, Washington State has implemented a comprehensive plan by mandating strict deadlines for PFAS prohibition in numerous product categories.
___
© 2024 States Newsroom
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
