Predictable Recurring Patterns:Industry Influence in USEPA Policy Decisions

Yesterday, I found myself in the challenging position of following renowned attorney Rob Bilott at the ATMOsphere conference in Washington DC. Talk about big shoes to fill! ?? ATMOsphere, a Brussels-based organization dedicated to replacing refrigerants with safer, natural alternatives, is tackling critical issues highlighted by Bilott.

While it's commendable that new regulations set to take effect on June 24, 2024, will provide some protection against exposure to six out of over 14,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water (refer to Figure 1), the recent move by the industry to challenge USEPA regulations was unfortunately predictable (https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/10/climate/pfas-forever-chemicals-lawsuit.html).

Recent studies have raised concerns about another PFAS variant known as trifluoroacetic acid or TFA (refer to Figure 2). These studies have revealed widespread contamination of drinking water, human blood, rainwater, and indoor household dust with TFA, sparking alarm among experts (source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/may/01/rapidly-rising-levels-of-tfa-forever-chemical-alarm-experts).

“If you’re drinking water, you’re drinking a lot of TFA.”

~David Behringer, an environmental consultant who has studied TFA in rain for the German government.

The limited scope of health studies on trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) suggests its adverse effects on target organs such as the liver, along with its association with birth defects and fertility issues (source: https://echa.europa.eu/fr/registration-dossier/-/registered-dossier/5203/7/9/3/?documentUUID=bbe1c0df-91db-4cef-a965-89ded98a88c8). These findings echo the established scientific evidence regarding PFOA, PFOS, and the four other PFAS chemicals slated for USEPA regulation.

However, a significant challenge arises from the fact that USEPA has excluded these chemicals from the federal definition of PFAS. Consequently, they would be subject to separate regulation, a concern raised by approximately 150 scientists, including myself, who recently urged USEPA to regulate PFAS as a class, akin to the approach taken in the 1980s for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). This exclusion from regulation likely stems from industry efforts to evade regulations concerning f-gases (fluorinated gases) and fluoropolymers, both highly profitable sectors, with the fluoropolymer market alone valued at an estimated $7.9 billion (source: https://cen.acs.org/policy/chemical-regulation/battle-over-PFAS-Europe/101/i31).

As previously reported, these industry-driven maneuvers were evident in the New Hampshire legislature, where the American Chemistry Council ludicrously attempted to draw parallels between PFAS and berries during testimony against a bill aimed at refining the PFAS definition (watch the testimony here: https://youtu.be/9SZ51_biVy4).

Moreover, Gabriel Salierno of the University of Lowell highlighted yesterday how refrigerants currently in use can transform into TFA which often leak from an air conditioning systems. With global temperatures soaring to unprecedented levels, air conditioning becomes a lifesaver in many regions. However, the escalating demand for cooling solutions risks perpetuating a harmful cycle if we persist in using non-natural refrigerants, particularly those containing PFAS.

Thus, it's clear that we cannot simply assume that USEPA has the situation under control. Prior to 2016, over 84,000 chemicals were allowed onto the market with minimal safety testing. While the amendments to the Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) initially slowed down the chemical approval process, in recent years about 76% of new chemical applications are approved for use on the market.

Significant progress has been made with a handful of the more than 14,000 PFAS chemicals known to exist. However, as Rob Bilott said yesterday,

“It took 20 years to get chemical companies to start accounting for the toxic effects of synthetic PFOA C8. With the new C2 and C3 poly fluorinated carbon chains being labeled 'PFAS free,' we need to take action now to keep history from repeating itself."

If you want more information about TFA? and concerns about refrigerants, this is a good summary (https://ecostandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TFA-Briefing.pdf).

You can read more in my book Female Disruptors: Stories of Mighty Female Scientists that is available on Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and through your local bookstore.

"Female Disruptors is a wonderful mix of stories about mighty female scientists, and carefully documented data on everything from discrimination against women in STEM to the impact of balancing a career in science with motherhood. Mindi makes this personal by interweaving her own stories, which makes the work come alive. If you want to both be infuriated at woman scientist's plight, and also hear words of hope, and solid ideas for change, read this book."

~ Dr. Linda Rhodes, VMD, PhD