British Columbia Goverment Launches Class Action Suit Against Manufacterers of Forever Chemicals

The province of British Columbia has decided to be the first Canadian jurisdiction to sue a select group of 12 manufacturers of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds, known as PFAS chemicals, to "ensure that companies that created the problem, and profited from these chemicals, pay their fair share". The lawsuit claims the named manufactuers "did not warn the Canadian public of the dangers posed by their PFAS-containing products or take any steps to modify or remove their products to avoid these harms — instead, they concealed and affirmatively contradicted the known dangers in public statements and marketing campaigns designed to enrich themselves at the public’s expense".

My guess is the government is being faced with inquiries from the public in response to the recent announcment by the US EPA establishing the first-ever US national drinking water standards for PFAS and the concerns expressed by state and municipal governments regarding the cost of meeting those standards. Rather than preparing a knowledgable assessment of the problem in British Columbia and what improvements in water treatment standards and technologies are required, it is easier for the govenrment to appear to act and get press attention by announcing they will be the first to sue.

However, like how carbon dioxide ends up being targeted as a critical emissions target largely because like the other air pollutants which are largely ignored, it can be managed and controlled, there are an extensive number of chemicals besides PFAS that are routinely discharged from municipal and industrial wastewater effluents to groundwater and the aquatic environment. Occassionally one or more will come to the government's and public's attention, such as dioxins being released by the pulp & paper industries several decades ago, but the vast majority remain essentially ignored by government. These include the wide range of pharmaceuticals, persistent organic pollutants (POPS), endocrine disruptive chemicals (EDC's) and heavy metals.

Take a look at an engineering text book or design guideline for design criteria to remove these conaminants from muncipal wastewater effluents, and you won't find anything. Municipal wastewater treatment is focused on screening out debris, removing grit and growing bacteria on waste food and biodegradable organic matter in wastewater, with the primary purpose of preventing those organics from entering the aquatic environment where bacteria will consume the food and depelete oxygen in the water, and affect fish. Treatment also improves the ability to disinfect the effluent prior to discharge. However, the treatment process is not able to remove or treat for these chemicals of concern. The retention time within the treatment process is typically only a few hours, which is an insufficient amount of time to break down complex organic compounds. Typically half the contaminants we should be concerned about from an environmental impact and water quality perspective end up passing through the treatment plant and into the ecosystem untreated. The remainder is largely stuck to the bacteria (biosolids) that are grown during treatment, often to be disposed of to land and end up being released to the environment through that route.

Toxic chemicals released in wastewater effluent are bioaccumulating in the environment, as evidenced by findings of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) found in the bubber of whales all over the globe. With the improvements in cancer detection and treatment it is difficult to assess whether the presence of these many chemicals of concern in our water and food are a factor in the incidence of cancer, but it is likely a good bet there is a connection and the BC government seems to have connected the dots in regard to the overall costs to health care in the province. So why have government's collectively stuck their heads in the sand about this issue instead of proactively facilitating the development of effective solutions?

The US National Institute of Environmental H ealth Sciences notes there are nearly 15,000 synthetic chemicals that make up the Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) group, so the size of the problem is huge. While there are studies that focus on reported strong "links" between PFAS and primary disease endpoints such as low birth rate, childhood obesity, hypothyroidism in women and testicular and kidney cancer, there is no direct cause and effect link. Common sense dictates that health impacts are the outcome of contaminant exposure, complex environmental and chemical interactions and genetic factors. However, the financial compensation from a lawsuit after health has been impacted is poor compensation and does nothing to address the exposure to PFAS or the broader problem of contaminants in "treated" wastewater effluent that is discharged to the environment.

Source control through public awareness and engagement is realistically the only effective way to address this problem. This means better labeling and public knowledge and awareness of the problem, including the development of secondary school curriculum, and the establishment and engagement of the public to adopt alternative source control measures are essential to developing an effective solution. For example, currently cancer patients receiving chemotherapy are treated and released from hospital the same day between treatments with instuctions not to let family members touch their bodily fluids and to "flush twice". Instead, measures could be taken to provide a means of conveniently capturing the sanitary waste and appropriately treating it collectively at the hospital. Making the public more aware of the environmental impact of drugs flushed down a toilet, and making it more convenient to take waste drugs to the pharmacy, perhaps even rewarding, could make a big difference as a source control measures. Public education, information, awareness and feedback is truly the most significant thing that can be done to minimize the release of these contaminants to the environment. Like the fish markers at roadway stormwater catchbasins to remind the public that what goes into the drain can impact fish, we need to develop effective alternatives and communicate those in a positive way as well as provide reinforcing feedback. Anthropolgy and human psychology, not technology or Class Action lawsuits, are the key components of a truly sustainable solution.