WASHINGTON (Legal Newsline) – Evidence linking cancer and chemicals known as PFAS "remains sparse," a study funded by the Centers for Disease Control says, as the Environmental Protection Agency – on President Trump’s last full day in office – announced new initiatives aimed at regulating them while stopping short of declaring a national maximum contaminant level.
The EPA on Jan. 19 also refused to designate the chemicals as "hazardous" under a pair of federal laws, a move that will likely be revisited by the incoming Democratic senators and President-Elect Joe Biden. For now, though, results of an analysis of existing research into the health effects they have on humans noted conflicting results across 28 studies of varying methodologies show a need for further examination.
“The occupational studies, whether focused on PFOS (3M plant in Alabama) or PFOA (DuPont plant in West Virginia, 3M plant in Minnesota, and plant in Veneto, Italy), do not show a consistent pattern of elevation of the incidence of cancer at any specific site,” the article says.
“However, there are instances of an association between increased exposure, based on work histories and various types of retrospective exposure assessment methods, and prostate cancer (in 3 cohorts, two with PFOA exposure and one with PFOS exposure), kidney cancer (in one cohort with PFOA exposure), liver cancer (in one cohort with PFOA exposure), colorectal cancer (in one cohort with PFOS exposure), bladder cancer (in 1 cohort with PFOS exposure and 1 cohort with PFOA exposure), and hematopoetic and lymphatic malignancies (in 2 cohorts with PFOA exposure).”
PFAS chemicals have been found in products like non-stick cookware and firefighting foam. Dubbed “forever chemicals” because of the human body’s inability to rid itself of them, they have likely made it into the bloodstreams of most Americans through groundwater.
Their exact health effects are unknown, though, and Trump’s EPA resisted setting a federal MCL during his four years. The article, authored by Kyle Steenland of the Rollins School of Public Health at Emory University and Andrea Winquist of the Centers for Disease Control’s National Center for Environmental Health, agreed that doing so would be premature.
Noting the inconsistencies of cancer rates, as well as what chemical in the PFAS family was the subject of the exposures, their article called the results of the various studies “informative, but not entirely conclusive.”
“Each study design has strengths and limitations which need to be carefully considered when interpreting study findings Weaknesses in study design can, in some cases, lead to questionable associations, but in other cases study design weaknesses can make it more difficult to detect true associations if they are present,” the article says.
“No study will be perfect, so a variety of studies, with different strengths and weaknesses, can be helpful to clarify associations between PFAS and cancer.”
Despite formal federal guidelines, companies like 3M and DuPont have found themselves the targets of alliances between private lawyers and state regulators.
States like Michigan, New Jersey and New Hampshire have set their own MCLs, well below the federal advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion. They’ve also hired private lawyers to file lawsuits and receive a percentage of any recovery.
In some states, like Mississippi, those lawyers contributed to the political campaigns of the state official who hired them.
Lawsuits are consolidated in a South Carolina federal court, where not much is happening other than the judge presiding over them – a former personal injury lawyer – showing an unwillingness to entertain motions to dismiss.
Another lawsuit seeks to certify a class of all Americans with PFAS in their bloodstreams – which would be nearly all Americans – but doesn’t allege the chemicals have caused any health problems.
PFAS is likely to be a preferred cause of Democrats, now that they will be in control in Washington. In 2019, House Democrats passed a measure that would classify PFAS as hazardous materials under the federal Superfund law, opening liability for remediation to countless companies and entities.
Airports are among those concerned, while hospitals, farmers and sewage plants should be too.
Hearings were stacked against minority witnesses preaching patience while Dems were treated to a screening of an anti-PFAS documentary.
Ultimately, Senate Republicans refused to pass the bill in which the Superfund measure was included. Trump had promised a veto anyway.
Considering votes came mostly along party lines, Democrats will now have at least two years to make the Superfund measure a reality.
Tuesday, the EPA said it will take the next steps toward regulating PFOA and PFOS in drinking water and issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. It is seeking comment on whether it should designate those two and other PFAS as hazardous under the Superfund law the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.