The agreement between DuPont and the EPA in 2013 marked the end of PFOA production and use for the company. This decision was mirrored by the remaining five global PFOA producers, all initiating a phase-out. Amidst merger negotiations with Dow Chemical, DuPont divested its chemical operations, creating Chemours. This new entity adopted alternative fluorine-based compounds, ironically, a solution DuPont had previously dismissed two decades prior, claiming quicker biodegradation. Crucially, these replacements, much like PFOA, remained unregulated by the EPA. Chemours, when questioned about safety, issued a statement asserting “a significant body of data demonstrates that these alternative chemistries can be used safely.”
However, the safety narrative is far from settled. In May 2015, a collective of 200 scientists spanning diverse disciplines released the Madrid Statement, voicing concerns about all fluorochemicals (PFASs), including PFOA replacements. These substances are flagged as potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals, a broad category encompassing compounds used in pesticides, plastics, and gasoline. These chemicals are known to disrupt human reproduction and metabolism, linked to cancer, thyroid issues, and nervous system disorders. Emerging endocrinology research over the past five years highlights that even minimal exposure to such chemicals can trigger significant health problems. The Madrid Statement scientists urged for “legislation to require only essential uses of PFASs” and advised, “Whenever possible, avoid products containing, or manufactured using, PFASs. These include many products that are stain-resistant, waterproof or nonstick.”
DuPont, through Dan Turner, head of global media relations, responded to the Madrid Statement via email: ‘‘DuPont does not believe the Madrid Statement reflects a true consideration of the available data on alternatives to long-chain perfluorochemicals, such as PFOA. DuPont worked for more than a decade, with oversight from regulators, to introduce its alternatives. Extensive data has been developed, demonstrating that these alternatives are much more rapidly eliminated from the body than PFOA, and have improved health safety profiles. We are confident that these alternative chemistries can be used safely — they are well characterized, and the data has been used to register them with environmental agencies around the world.’’
Amidst this corporate and scientific back-and-forth, Rob Bilott emerges as a persistent figure. Each year, this lawyer sends letters to the EPA and the West Virginia DEP, advocating for PFOA regulation in drinking water. In 2009, the EPA established a “provisional” short-term exposure limit of 0.4 parts per billion, yet this figure never gained finalization. Consequently, water districts aren’t mandated to inform consumers about PFOA presence in their water. The EPA, in response to Bilott’s continued appeals, indicated a “lifetime health advisory level for PFOA” would be announced by “early 2016.”
While future generations might find solace in such advisory levels, the reality for those reading in 2016 is stark: PFOA is already within us. It’s in our blood, our families’ blood, transmitted through air, diet, nonstick cookware, and even the umbilical cord. Contaminated water sources are another route. The Environmental Working Group’s research uncovered manufactured fluorochemicals in 94 water districts across 27 states. Cities like Issaquah, WA; Wilmington, DE; Colorado Springs; and Nassau County, Long Island, exhibit higher fluorochemical concentrations than some districts involved in Rob Bilott’s class-action suit. Parkersburg, WV, the very location of DuPont’s plant, remains with PFOA-tainted water, despite its district not being part of the initial lawsuit and lacking a DuPont-funded filtration system. Alarmingly, many residents remain unaware of this contamination.
