Ethics of Sustainability - Do No Harm

The precautionary principle (PP) is a decision-making tool to assist in dealing with highly uncertain risks. Risks arise from climate change, impact the entity itself, and have implications on the community due to vulnerability to catastrophic events during unpredictable events. Uncertain risk also includes the manufacture and disposal of potentially hazardous materials. When improperly stored or disposed of, they can contaminate the environment due to leaching or runoff when unsecured. Also, when sold and improperly encapsulated as a finished product. These scenarios are what have led to ethics issues in sustainability.

The "do no harm" principle of medicine also fits in sustainability. The code is typically interpreted to mean that your actions should not cause injury or injustice to people. However, in its strictest sense, the principle can also be applied to inactions and negligence. There are always good reasons why this occurs. Nations act inappropriately because they are protecting their national security. Industries justify unethical actions because it's in the interests of the shareholders. Individuals turn to selfish, unjust actions, sighting they are just looking out for number one! ??

These are the common attributes of sustainability. This shows us that when safety and responsible manufacturing and disposal are ignored, society, the economy, and the environment all suffer. That's unsustainable!

Case in point - The Story of PFAS. Regulation in the United States over "forever chemicals" has become common knowledge. As a result, these chemicals that do damage to everything living have become increasingly discussed. Of course, I am referring to the threats that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) pose to human health.?PFAS are in non-stick pans, firefighting foams, water-resistant coatings, stain-resistant fabrics, and coatings for packaged food and shipping materials.

A growing body of research is exposing PFAS as chemicals that should be avoided due to their persistence and mobility in the environment. In addition, PFAS are not broken down by factors such as sunlight, water, exposure to air, or ambient temperature variability. That means the vast majority of all PFAS compounds produced are still circulating today. There are estimated to be over 5000 various PFAS compounds in existence.

The USEPA has set a new Health Advisory warning in the United States at 0.004 Parts Per Trillion. The EPA has not placed a formal MCL for any PFAS yet but has established a Lifetime Health Advisory Level for drinking water at 70 parts per trillion for two of the PFAS chemicals, perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).

The Story of DuPont:

DuPont chemical plant in Washington, West Virginia, started using PFAS in their manufacturing process in 1951. Shortly after, a Dupont employee received an inquiry into the possible toxicity of "C8."?C8 is an eight-carbon chain chemical structure that includes?Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)?and?Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS). These are long-chain?PFAS.?C8 is super stable and hardy and takes forever to break down. OH!! And it's good at attaching to soils and migrating into aquifers.

In 1956, a study at Stanford University found that PFAS binds to the proteins in human blood, and five years later, an in-house DuPont toxicologist deemed C8 toxic and should be handled with extreme care. Around this time, DuPont buried as many as 200 drums of C8 on the banks of the Ohio River. Unfortunately, this was near the plant where they rusted, leaked into the river, and poisoned the people and livestock in the surrounding area. In addition, other manufacturers like 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), the?Oakdale Dump,?PFAS in firefighting foams, and Wolverine have been guilty of poor handling and disposal of the potentially toxic substance since the 1970s.

In 1998 when Robert Bilott with Taft, Stettinius & Hollister LLP (a Cincinnati-based attorney) took the case to represent Wilbur 'Earl' Tennant. Bilott filed a federal suit against DuPont in the?summer of 1999?in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of his client Mr. Tennant.

The Tennant family purchased 68 acres along West Virginia Route 68 in 1968, but in 1984 they sold a portion of their adjoining land to Dupont. This land was to become the Dry Run Landfill. The Tennant family claims a noticeable difference in the ground within a year of the property sale. Cattle began to die, deer carcasses were found, and "there were no minnows in the streams."

Tennant, a farmer in Parkersburg, West Virginia, blamed DuPont's Washington Works facility for his cattle dying. Ok, so that sentence doesn't even do it justice. Over 250 Tennant's cattle died of a "mysterious wasting disease." While the cause of death was never conclusively linked with the chemical contamination from DuPont, the company quietly settled with the Tennant family for an undisclosed amount. Tennant had dissected his cows to determine and document the cause of death because area veterinarians didn't want to get involved. So he recorded and documented his findings on video. The video revealed:

1. Blackened teeth, liver, heart, stomachs, kidneys, and gall bladder; unusual discolorations — some dark, some green.
2. The cows with stringy tails, malformed hooves, giant lesions protruding from their hides, and red, receded eyes.
3. His herd was suffering constant diarrhea, slobbering white slime the consistency of toothpaste, staggering bowlegged like drunks.

In 1999, Bilott filed a federal suit in the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of Wilbur Tennant against DuPont. A report commissioned by the EPA and DuPont and authored by six veterinarians (three chosen by the EPA and the others by DuPont) found that Tennant's cattle had died because of Tennant's "poor husbandry," which included "poor nutrition, inadequate veterinary care and lack of fly control."

While performing research during the suit, Bilott found an article identifying a surfactant called perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA aka C8) in Dry Run Creek. So, in 2000 he requested more information through a court order to DuPont. DuPont was ordered to submit 110,000 pages of documents dating back to the 1950s. A year later (2001), DuPont settled out of court with Tennant for an undisclosed sum. Shortly after, Bilott submitted a substantial submission to the EPA and US Attorney General demanding that "immediate action be taken to regulate PFOA and provide clean water to those living near."?

While Tennant settled, Bilott filed a class action suit against DuPont in August 2001. According to a 2004 report by?ChemRisk, an industry risk assessor hired by DuPont, "Dupont's Parkersburg, West Virginia-based?Washington Works?plant had dumped, poured and released over 1.7 million pounds of C8 or?perfluorooctanoic acid?(PFOA) into the environment between 1951 and 2003."

In 2017, DuPont agreed to pay $671 million to settle approximately 3,550 personal injury claims involving the leak of PFOAs used to make Teflon in Parkersburg, West Virginia. DuPont denied any wrongdoing.

This is a seriously brief snapshot and by no means an exhaustive history of DuPont's use and handling of PFAS or use in other applications. Find more information and actions to address public health at https://www.epa.gov/pfas.

Conclusion:

Initially, the precautionary principle, a creature of environmental law and policy, emerged in the 1970s from a growing recognition of the global, potentially irreversible, and largely unknown effects of greenhouse gases and associated climate change. Unlike early environmental policies that tended to develop reactively to point-source pollution, the PP places a premium on anticipatory approaches to threats whose implications have yet to materialize.

At its heart lies the notion that protective measures may be adopted notwithstanding significant uncertainties surrounding the likelihood or magnitude of potential risks. The consequences of a particular activity that are difficult to predict ought not to deter decision-makers from taking steps to avoid or reduce the prospect of harm. Decisions may be taken before those consequences are fully understood. The point is straightforward and, in its broadest sense, reflects the proverb' better safe than sorry. "The appeal of the principle makes it a consensus candidate, among a public otherwise deeply divided about environmental policies" (Cross, 1996: 851).

The utility and use of PFAS for firefighting and thus saving lives probably has some justification for its use. I would rather be exposed to PFAS than burn in a fuel fire. However, proper disclosure and public protection precautions for many chemicals are still not understood. Additionally, many were never issued or followed by the chemical manufacturers until they had been caught. ?

The damage, pain, and unnecessary suffering caused to innocent families and livestock cannot be calculated. The damage we all suffer now and in the future because PFAS and other chemicals found in the blood of nearly every living thing will not be known for years. There is never a good reason for this kind of irresponsible environmental abuse, lying and deceiving courts, and regulatory agencies allowing industries to manufacture and distribute products worldwide because they have good uses. This logic or justification isn't sustainable because it harms us all and is terrible for the people, planet, and profits. ?