Experts Wrestle Over Uses of PFAS During Senate Hearing

Experts tussled over the need for stronger regulation of so-called “forever chemicals,” with some Republicans and one industry-backed witness raising concerns about unintended consequences of a blanket ban, during a subcommittee hearing on Thursday.

There are reportedly over 14,000 kinds of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the chemicals found in everything from nonstick frying pans and waterproof mascara, to semiconductors.

“It’s impossible to avoid PFAS,” said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), chair of the Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice and Regulatory Oversight, noting that their durability and resistance to environmental processing make them “an environmental disaster.”

Merkley highlighted the link between PFAS and numerous medical conditions, including certain cancers, liver damage, fertility problems, hypertension, low birth weight, and developmental delays.

“This is a public health challenge, and we want to understand it better,” Merkley said. “Avoiding PFAS poisoning cannot and should not be the responsibility of individual consumers.”

But Subcommittee Ranking Member Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) argued that “blanketed banning of PFAS without fully understanding the risk differences between the chemicals would not only suffocate our economy, it would halt innovation,” and disproportionately hurt low-income and rural communities.

He acknowledged that exposure to certain PFAS can cause adverse health effects, but “overreaction is not what I want to do here.”

Unintended Consequences

Michael Larrañaga, PhD, president and managing principal for R.E.M. Risk Consultants in Dallas, who spoke on behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association, called for a “balanced and common-sense approach to chemical management” that weighs the consequences of certain alternatives and avoids harming technological advancements and national security.

As an example of unintended consequences, Larrañaga pointed to the 2019 International Terminals Company fire in Deer Park, Texas, during which fire departments tried using fluorine-free foams to extinguish the flames for 51 hours.

“During the 51st hour, PFAS containing AFFF [aqueous film forming foam] was applied, and the fire was extinguished 13 hours later,” he said.

More than 16 million pounds of toxic emissions were released during the fire. By contrast, the 13 hours of AFFF application using the modern military specifications would have released around 30 ounces or 2.5 coffee cups worth of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), he estimated.

“If my family and I are aboard a jetliner that crashes, please soak us in AFFF,” Larrañaga said.

He also pointed out that guidance systems on airplanes and ships use semiconductors containing PFAS. If airplanes were banned from using those types of semiconductors, they would get heavier, carry less people, and burn more carbon to move the same amount of cargo.

“And public health would not be better off,” he noted.

Mullin also pointed out that certain antidepressants, autoinflammatory disease drugs, essential cancer treatments, and atorvastatin (Lipitor) contain PFAS, and suggested that not all PFAS have the same impacts on human health and perhaps should be treated differently.

Larrañaga agreed with the idea that “different PFAS chemicals will have different chemical properties,” noting that chemicals should be looked at individually using “health-risk frameworks.”

However, Laurel Schaider, PhD, a senior scientist at Silent Spring Institute in Newton, Massachusetts, said that “we need to stop assuming that chemicals are innocent until proven guilty.”

The U.S. is still coping with the fallout from “costly messes” involving dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT), an insecticide, and polychlorinated biphenyls, a type of cooling fluid used in electrical equipment, after ignoring their harms for decades, she said.

Along with Schaider, Sue Fenton, PhD, director of the Center for Human Health and the Environment at NC State University in Raleigh, North Carolina, called for comprehensive strategies to address PFAS contamination that would identify and minimize exposure, support vulnerable communities, and ultimately eliminate their unnecessary use, including in nonstick cookware, stain-resistant carpets, cosmetics, dental floss, and children’s clothing.

Schaider said her own research has highlighted the potential harms of PFAS in fast food packaging. (The FDA banned this use in February.) She also pointed out that carpeting treated with Scotchgard or Stainmaster contains PFAS, and young children who spend more time closer to the ground are particularly vulnerable to exposure through frequent hand-to-mouth contact and through their skin.

When Merkley asked about PFAS used in cosmetics, Fenton noted that certain mascaras and foundations use PFAS for waterproofing and that everyday use would lead to substantial exposure.

Asked whether there were studies that showed a link between makeup and PFAS in the bloodstream, Schaider said she wasn’t aware of any specific studies, but added that a study “for every single product” isn’t needed, because “some portion” of those chemicals will inevitably end up in the bloodstream.

Address ‘Low-Hanging Fruit’

Schaider noted that no PFAS are completely safe, and while some pathways may be more challenging to address than others, she pushed for a general approach of reducing exposure overall and targeting “low-hanging fruit.”

She pointed to the essential uses framework as a guide on how to implement reductions in PFAS use. For example, Oral B dental floss, which is made with Teflon, could be immediately eliminated, she said, adding that “we’re putting Teflon in our mouth.”

In contrast, “critical infrastructure” such as cell phones and semiconductors might take longer to find alternatives and to phase out, she acknowledged.

Fenton pointed out that the average person may never touch a semiconductor, but waste from the industries that use them filters into the water and air. “So, proper disposal of the waste in these industries is super important,” she said.

Current Environmental Protection Agency regulations — finalized by the Biden administration in April — will remove compounds that we know cause some of these harmful health effects, Fenton said. “So, if we can keep that regulation in place, it will take those PFAS out of water, out of air.”

She also urged lawmakers to support PFAS warning labels. “If we knew which consumer products had PFAS in them, we could make better choices,” she noted.

Merkley agreed and suggested there may be certain uses of PFAS for which labeling is more important than others. “We’ll look to your expertise to help guide us on this,” he said.

Please enable JavaScript to view the

comments powered by Disqus.