Picture, for a moment, your kitchen. When you come home at night, how will you prepare dinner? Maybe you’ll pull a box of leftover pizza from the fridge, or make some stir-fry using that new recipe you’ve been meaning to try. You’ll pour a glass of water to drink, or fill a pot with it to boil some pasta. And maybe you’ll top it off with a piece of candy from that bag you bought to pass out to the neighborhood kids on Halloween—just one or two pieces, of course, since you’re saving it for the onslaught of ghosts, pirates, and superheroes demanding treats at your front door in a couple of days.
Yet in all of those items, from the pizza box to that nice nonstick pan you proudly invested in, there’s a certain class of chemicals facing increased scrutiny by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. These per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are found in everything from candy wrappers to fire-extinguishing foam. They’re incredibly useful in their ability to make materials more waterproof, heatproof, and stain-resistant, among other beneficial qualities—hence their presence in so many items that we take for granted today.
On Monday, however, EPA administrator Michael Regan announced the agency’s PFAS Roadmap, a series of strategic efforts to “prevent PFAS from being released into the air, drinking systems, and food supply, and […] expand cleanup efforts to remediate the impacts of these harmful pollutants.” The plan includes a whole host of goals, from implementing water monitoring systems and regulatory limits for PFAS in drinking water to furthering scientific research on the health risks PFAS poses to humans and the environment, all to be completed within the next few years. Characterized by critics as being “too little, too late,” the roadmap nevertheless represents a concrete step for the federal government towards a return to evidence-based environmental policy.
But if PFAS are so helpful, why worry about them in the first place?
The Dangers of Immortality
The strength of PFAS molecules literally lies in their bonds. PFAS molecules all contain carbon-fluorine bonds in various quantities and arrangements, and the bond between carbon and fluorine is extremely strong. Hence why PFAS compounds are known as “forever chemicals”: the carbon-fluorine bonds hold together so tightly that PFAS molecules won’t break down naturally, so they remain resistant to heat, water, and other forces—seemingly forever. The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences even reports that we “are unable to estimate an environmental half-life for PFAS, which is the amount of time it takes 50% of the chemical to disappear.”
This is good news for companies whose products rely on PFAS: the nonstick coating on pans won’t melt away on a hot stove, and the waterproof coating on your rain jacket won’t dissolve in a sudden downpour. But this strength also means that PFAS persist forever, wherever they are—be it drinking water, soil, or even the body of a fish. And because of their chemical structure, the compounds are relatively mobile: they’re easily transported in water underground, and can end up in both plants and the animals who consume them.
The mobility and seeming “immortality” of PFAS doesn’t present much of a concern on its own, however. We inhale and consume myriad other chemical compounds throughout our lives with few risks, if any. If PFAS were just another chemical that stuck around for a while, they wouldn’t present much of an extra risk.
Instead, the concern comes when we combine that immortality with the risks certain PFAS pose to human health. Both the EPA and the CDC note that current research links the presence of certain PFAS to disrupted hormones, reproductive systems, and child development, as well as to an increased risk of cancer and a weakened immune response to infections and vaccinations. If PFAS persist in the environment, then our risk of exposure increases significantly; as PFAS continue to accumulate, we can continue to inhale and consume them.
Furthermore, PFAS pollution has also been shown to disproportionately affect low-income communities and people of color. A recent analysis of public water systems in California by the Natural Resources Defense Council showed that communities already struggling with other environmental concerns were more likely to have higher levels of PFAS in their water supply. Another analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found similar results, noting particularly strong inequities in Michigan.
Delayed Action, Promising Policies
If the science is clear on the risks of certain PFAS, why has the EPA taken so long to regulate them—and why does the current roadmap still focus on building more research and requiring industry reporting on the potential health risks? Attorneys and advocates against PFAS contamination alike are asking the same question, with some noting that “this all should have been done yesterday” and others recalling twenty years of attempts to petition the EPA regarding PFAS pollution.
On the other hand, industry leaders note that certain PFAS are useful for very specific purposes, including in solar panels and medical equipment, and are thus difficult to replace. Consumers, too, have become all too used to our waterproof outdoor equipment and microwaveable popcorn—and, let’s face it, we like these conveniences a lot.
With the demands of industry and consumers on one side, and health concerns on the other, the EPA has chosen to strike a delicate balance between the two: monitoring and regulating the PFAS we know to be harmful, while beginning to investigate the PFAS whose health risks we’re unsure about. This, while time-consuming, represents the EPA’s decision to rely on rigorous scientific investigation and evidence when creating its policies and recommendations.
PFAS exists in thousands of different forms, most of which haven’t yet been fully studied for health risks. Furthermore, the EPA itself admits that there’s a lot it still doesn’t know about how to manage and monitor PFAS. It’s true that taking a few years to understand the risks and figure out best management practices will allow more PFAS to build up in the environment, but doing so will also allow the EPA to narrow down which PFAS we can and cannot tolerate, and how to effectively remove them from our surroundings, hopefully without creating any unfortunate side effects.
If this roadmap fails to result in concrete action on PFAS after the initial period of monitoring and study, it may be because further research is needed—or, as happened in 2019 and previous years, it may be an instance of the EPA “[kicking] the can even further down the road.” But if fulfilled, this plan will greatly improve the body of scientific knowledge surrounding PFAS and enhance how we deal with environmental pollutants and the resulting risks to human health. Hopefully, it’ll also prove the effectiveness of policies based on scientific evidence.
Who knows? Maybe we’ll even get to keep the pizza boxes.
Take Action On PFAS
- The EPA provides a list of action items here, including how to avoid PFAS and how to provide input on proposed regulations.
- Check out this article and this petition from Earthjustice, which asks the Biden Administration to speed up its timeline, close certain loopholes, and strengthen existing protections in its proposed policies.
- Read this case study by Justine Bolling on environmental justice and PFAS contamination in two cities in New York and New Hampshire.
- Read through the EPA’s full roadmap for PFAS. What do they cover? What seems to be missing?
- If you work for a small business, nonprofit, or local government, check out this page before Nov. 2, 2021 to nominate your organization to provide input to the EPA on its PFAS regulations.
This article was originally published here as “The EPA Wants To Take A Few Years To Regulate PFAs. Here’s Why.” Revisions and additions were made for this version.
- A Dose of Climate Optimism from 2021 - January 20, 2022
- When It Comes To Climate Change, Language Matters. Here’s Why. - December 28, 2021
- The EPA Wants To Take A Few Years To Regulate PFAS. Here’s Why. - October 28, 2021