Growing calls to end the use of so-called “forever chemicals”, used in everything from non-stick frying pans to medical equipment, risk causing unnecessary supply chain disruption and illicit trade

Recently, calls for a complete ban of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever-chemicals”, have intensified in the EU. Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Denmark spearheaded a consultation on PFAS to collect the evidence to kick-start this process. Belgium is also tightening its PFAS regulations.

The EU already regulates some uses of PFAS. In line with the Stockholm Convention, the 2019 EU’s Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) Regulation restricts the use of Polydioctylfluorenes (PFOS), a group of PFAS. A year later, the European Food and Safety Agency (EFSA) introduced thresholds for four PFAS in food.

Over the past few years, multiple EU Member States have pushed for regulation of individual PFAS. In 2018, Sweden and Germany jointly called on the EU to ban six long-chain PFAS. The greatest anti-PFAS sentiment comes from the Nordic countries, where restrictive national legislation has been introduced.

Sven Giegold, Speaker of the German Green Delegation in the European Parliament, proposed banning all PFAS  “so that manufacturers cannot simply switch to chemically similar compounds that are not yet regulated”. The Greens point to the dangers associated with the PFAS water contamination and health risks.

However, while it might be tempting to act on a whim and ban all PFAS single-handedly, we should take a step back. The complete ban would be a knee-jerk reaction to an issue that requires careful and ideology-free risk analysis.

Under the PFAS umbrella, there are between 4500 and 6000 chemicals. These man-made structures have been in use since the 1940s and have become extensively entrenched in our supply chains. The main reason for this is PFAS’ outstanding water, oil, and acid resistance and surface tension lowering properties.

Without PFAS, vital pieces of medical equipment would be difficult, even impossible, to produce. Surgical gowns, curtains, and floor coverings that contain PFAS help protect doctors from infections during surgeries. A wide variety of life-saving medical equipment uses PFAS. Stent-grafts, or fluoropolymer heart patches, used to cure various heart diseases, have helped millions of patients globally. The durability and reduced contamination of COVID-19 protective equipment is another example of PFAS’s multiple benefits.

PFAS also do carry some risks. When dumped into the water supply or used in excessive amounts, PFAS pose a considerable danger to our health and wellbeing. Much like many products and chemicals used in our daily lives, PFAS are not risk-free. That, however, doesn’t warrant a complete ban. A 2021 study by the Australian National University found that the exposure to PFAS comes almost entirely from water.  The risks associated with consumer items are nearly non-existent.

Because of PFAS’s overreaching use, the advocated ban will disrupt entire supply chains and shift production to countries with no respect for PFAS use thresholds or the environment, such as China. As long as the demand for a specific product – or production component – is there, and alternatives are either unavailable or less effective, the ban will only be exploited by producers in countries with no care for environmental safety standards or made available in the black market.

In the EU, illicit trade in pesticides alone – which have been subject to many bans and regulations – accounts for €1.3 billion annually, equal to the entire economy of Seychelles. A PFAS ban will only exacerbate these numbers unless the group approach is replaced with an individual risk assessment.

PFAS are diverse chemicals, many of which have become an indispensable part of crucial production processes such as the manufacture of medical equipment. Some PFAS, on the other hand, do pose a danger to our health and might require further restrictions or bans. Throwing all PFAS in the same basket out of precaution is neither economically nor scientifically sensible.

To protect European consumers, the European Union should opt for an individual risk assessment This would prevent unnecessary supply chain disruptions and illicit trade spikes. Europe can do better if it chooses science over populist calls for a complete PFAS ban.

Originally published here

Americans are facing higher prices on nearly everything they use from food to common household products. Instead of looking for solutions, Democrats are about to make things worse by banning a class of chemicals used in manufacturing that make products better and cheaper. In other words, pay attention, consumers. You’re about to get less bang for your already-beleaguered buck.

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as man-made or, as the activists like to call them, “forever chemicals,” are the latest addition to the long list of environmental boogeymen blamed for everything from causing cancer to infertility, thyroid problems, and a host of other health issues. In a hunt for a quick fix, Democrat legislators are moving toward a complete PFAS ban, which would outlaw a diverse group of more than 4,000 chemicals, regardless of their individual risks, benefits, and availability of reliable substitutes.

The PFAS Action Act was introduced in April 2021 and passed by the House in July. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), a sponsor of the bill, called PFAS “an urgent public health and environmental threat.” Yet, it is alarmism — not evidence — that drives the Democrats’ PFAS legislation. The assumption behind their approach is that PFAS chemicals all carry equal risks. They do not. PFAS chemicals have a wide array of uses, and, depending on the environment, break down differently.

As for PFAS being a health threat, studies don’t support that claim. In December 2021, the Australian National University published a groundbreaking study on PFAS. One of the key findings was that exposure to PFAS in impacted communities almost entirely comes from water and firefighting foam. That’s a problem because those who drink contaminated water or eat locally grown food that is contaminated are at the highest risk of PFAS-associated health problems. Yet the problem isn’t the existence or use of the chemical. It’s irresponsible and illegal production processes. Ensuring that these chemicals are properly used should drive regulation.

While the Australian study found PFAS exposure (PFOA and PFOS) increased higher cholesterol, other risks have not been confirmed. Even so, new research published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research states that there is often insufficient data supporting PFAS exposure with any specific disease.

PFAS can be found in household items and other common consumer products — like cell phones, medical equipment, and food packaging. These chemicals are also found in hospital settings. Surgical gowns, antimicrobial curtains, and floor coverings all contain PFAS to help protect doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel from infections during surgeries. Water, acid, and oil resistance are some of the main features making PFAS hard to substitute.

Instead of enacting bans, a smarter way to approach PFAS would be to assess these chemicals individually so that those chemicals that pose a significant risk to our health and wellbeing can be regulated appropriately.

The overreaching government hand is not needed to reduce the use of PFAS — that’s already happening. Thanks to industry self-regulation, the use of PFAS has decreased. And according to a 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, “industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.” Also, despite alarmism, the report has found no causal relationship between perfluoroalkyls and pregnancy-induced hypertension, decreased antibody response to vaccines, or other reported ties.

It is important to take claims on the connection between PFAS and health effects with a pinch of salt. Over 200 laboratory animal studies found the link between exposure to PFAS and adverse health effects, which seems convincing at first glance. However, the significance of those conclusions for policymaking is overstated. A review of the lab studies found they used much higher PFAS exposure levels than those observed in the general population. In other words, these studies do not replicate how humans come in contact with these chemicals.

American consumers will have to foot the bill for the Democrats’ PFAS alarmism. With inflation spiking, one would expect regulators to be guided by evidence. The risks associated with consumer items that contain PFAS are non-existent, but the proposed ban comfortably ignores this. The increased cost of production — and the difficulty of finding substitutions for PFAS — will be passed on to consumers.

Another fact ignored by Democrats is that this ban will not cease the production or use of PFAS chemicals. It will simply shift it to countries such as China, where regulations are more relaxed. That means the PFAS Act will do nothing more than make Americans poorer and less safe.

Originally published here

PFAS, also known as man-made or forever chemicals, are the latest addition to the long list of environmental scapegoats. In a hunt for a quick fix, the United States have chosen the path moving towards a complete PFAS ban. A diverse group of over 4000 chemicals, all PFAS–regardless of their individual risks, benefits, and availability of substitutes–could be outlawed.

The PFAS Action Act was introduced in April last year. It was passed in the lower chamber in July and is now sitting with the Senate. Rep. Debbie Dingell, a sponsor of the Bill, called PFAS “an urgent public health and environmental threat.” According to Dingell, “PFAS is causing cancer, infertility, thyroid problems, and a host of other health issues.” This mirrors the rhetoric of Pennsylvania congressional delegation members Madeleine Dean and Mary Gay Scanlon. Both Democratic congresswomen have emphasized the link between PFAS and various diseases, such as cancer as well as their presence in the blood of Americans. Overreaction–not evidence–drives the US PFAS legislation. The assumption behind such an approach is that PFAS as a group carry equal risks.

This view is primarily mistaken because PFAS have a wide array of uses, and, depending on the environment, they break down differently. The regulators should only resort to bans, where the evidence about risks associated with PFAS is solid. PFAS can be found in household items and other consumer products, medical equipment, food packaging, and more. Water, acid, and oil resistance are some of the main features making PFAS hard to substitute. Surgical gowns, curtains, and floor coverings that contain PFAS help protect doctors from infections during surgeries. PFAS also play a key role in cell phone production. A smart way to approach PFAS would be to assess them individually. This would allow us to identify those chemicals that pose a significant risk to our health and wellbeing and introduce regulation accordingly.

In December 2021, the Australian National University published a groundbreaking study on PFAS. The findings provide some helpful insights into what anti-PFAS efforts should focus on. To assess the risks associated with PFAS, three PFAS-contaminated Australian communities were chosen. One of the key findings was that exposure to PFAS in impacted communities almost entirely comes from water and firefighting foam. Those who drink contaminated water, or eat locally grown food that is contaminated, are at the highest risk of PFAS-associated health problems. This suggests that production, specifically poor production processes, carries most of the risk, while the risks associated with consumer items and other PFAS applications are non-existent.

Other findings include the increased PFAS-induced anxiety, which is not necessarily consistent with evidence-based risks of these chemicals. People who thought they had been exposed report symptoms that are entirely unrelated to PFAS. That is not surprising given the number of times PFAS have been presumably linked to multiple health problems.

The connection is weak though. While the Australian study found that PFAS exposure (PFOA and PFOS) increased higher cholesterol, other risks have not been confirmed. Even so, new research published in the Peer Reviewed journal Environmental Research states that there is often insufficient data supporting PFAS exposure with any specific disease. The Australian study shows that policymakers, and the population at large, tend to overreact to PFAS. Irresponsible production processes–not risks posed by consumer items– should be the true reason for concern and regulation.

The overreaction and knee-jerk policy response in the form of blanket ban is also largely mainly by the underreporting of PFAS phase out successes. The self-regulation of medical production companies in the 2000s led to a decrease of PFAS levels in the bloodstream of Americans. According to a 2018 Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls by the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry, “industrial releases have been declining since companies began phasing out the production and use of several perfluoroalkyls in the early 2000s.”

There is still a lot we don’t know about PFAS and the specific risks each of these chemicals carries. What we do know, though, is that exposure to contaminated water is dangerous. U.S. government regulation should target these harmful production processes–rather than looking to ban all PFAS, in particular those found in consumer items. It is key to not overreact and spread anxiety around PFAS, where there is no evidence.

Originally published here