Latest news with #PFAS
CNA
4 hours ago
- Health
- CNA
Commentary: What the world needs now is a universal ban on ‘forever chemicals'
LONDON: The more you learn about PFAS – per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday. There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as ' forever chemicals,' and they're used almost everywhere, including in non-stick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, firefighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss. They don't readily degrade; they also don't stay where we put them. As a result, we can now find PFAS in places such as our blood, human breast milk, Antarctica, wild animals and tap water. In the Netherlands, people have been warned not to eat the eggs from their backyard chickens by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment due to high levels of the chemicals. Though it's not yet clear why home-produced eggs have higher amounts of PFAS than commercial ones, one theory is that earthworms now contain such chemicals, and hens like to eat the worms. An analysis by environmental groups Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust found that nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England exceed proposed safety limits, with 85 per cent containing levels at least five times higher. France has banned tap water in 16 communes due to PFAS contamination, while a piece of investigative journalism called the Forever Pollution Project located 23,000 contaminated sites across Europe and a further 21,500 sites of presumptive contamination. I expect we haven't seen the last of the tap water bans. If the scale and extent of the pollution are hard to get your head around, the health implications are worse. PFAS have been linked to increased risk of various types of cancer, fertility problems, birth complications, delays to puberty and weakened immune systems. They've also been associated with increased cholesterol levels and kidney problems. COMPANIES ARE LOBBYING, DRAGGING THEIR FEET We're looking at an issue analogous to climate change – right down to lobbying and cover-ups by PFAS manufacturers. Internal documents from 3M, one of the original and largest producers, and chemical firm DuPont de Nemours revealed that the companies knew the substances were accumulating in people and showing signs of toxicity for decades without telling anyone. While 3M still maintains that their PFAS-containing products are 'safe' for their intended uses in everyday life, in December 2022 the company announced it will discontinue the use of PFAS by the end of 2025. Together, the firms have had to pay billions in lawsuit settlements related to their pollution, with more possibly to come as injury cases hit the courts. As with carbon dioxide, the longer we keep emitting PFAS into the environment, the worse the problem gets and the harder it is to clean up with remediation technologies. While the PFAS market globally is worth just over US$28 billion, the cost of cleaning up all the related pollution in the UK and Europe could be €100 billion (US$116 billion) a year if nothing is done to stem the chemicals' steady flow into the environment. And that doesn't factor in the healthcare costs, which the Nordic Council of Ministers estimates is at least €52 billion annually. Though some consumer brands such as outdoor gear retailer Patagonia and fast-food chain McDonald's have committed to phasing out PFAS from their products and packaging, others have been dragging their feet. A team of researchers, lawyers and journalists has also exposed a huge lobbying campaign against proposed restrictions in Europe, showing entrenched resistance to change. REGULATING ALL PFAS AS A GROUP, NOT INDIVIDUALLY So we need a ban, but so far, we've only seen piecemeal prohibitions targeting either a specific chemical or, in a couple of leading countries, sectors. The import and sale of PFAS-treated clothing, shoes and waterproofing agents will be barred from July 2026 in Denmark, while the chemicals have been banned in paper and board food packaging since 2020. The country has also recently announced a ban on 23 pesticides that can form a very mobile form of PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid. France, meanwhile, has banned PFAS in several consumer product groups, including textiles, cosmetics and ski wax. Cookware, however, has been excluded from the ban after a campaign led by the French maker of Tefal pans, Groupe SEB. Though it's a start, exempting a sector for which safe alternatives are readily available is, frankly, scandalous. A universal ban may be on its way. In 2023, five European Union member states – Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway – submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency, which two scientific committees are now examining. The ban covers both consumer and industrial applications, with time-limited exemptions expected for some uses where there are no alternatives, such as medical devices. What's most significant about the restriction is that it takes a precautionary approach, regulating all 10,000-plus PFAS as a group rather than individually. According to CHEM Trust, a charity focused on harmful synthetic chemicals, under the current rate of regulation that analyses each chemical individually, it would take more than 40,000 years to get through them all. WE KNOW THAT RESTRICTIONS HELP So the EU ban will be a huge step forward with positive impacts beyond its borders. But we'll be waiting a while for it to come into effect – if everything goes smoothly, we're likely looking at 2028 before sectors transition to new rules. Meanwhile, progress elsewhere is pitiful. The United Kingdom government published an interim position on PFAS management in June, but this has been criticised by scientists for opting not to target all chemicals at once and instead creating their own groupings. Not only is this risky, failing to regulate compounds that lack toxicity data, but it lacks urgency. In the United States, the Trump administration has pulled nearly US$15 million in research into PFAS contamination of farmland, while the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to rescind drinking water limits for four forever chemicals. Of course, even banning the use of all PFAS tomorrow won't do anything for the substances already in our bodies and drinking water. But we know that restrictions help. Two chemicals – PFOS and PFOA – are already banned in Europe. A 2023 study showed that blood concentrations of the chemicals have declined substantially over time in Denmark.
Gulf Today
10 hours ago
- Health
- Gulf Today
Stop playing whac-a-mole with forever chemicals
Lara Williams, Tribune News Service The more you learn about PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday. There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as 'forever chemicals,' and they're used almost everywhere, including in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, fire-fighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss. They don't readily degrade; they also don't stay where we put them. As a result, we can now find PFAS in places such as our blood, human breast milk, Antarctica, wild animals and tap water. In the Netherlands, people have been warned not to eat the eggs from their backyard chickens by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment due to high levels of the chemicals. Though it's not yet clear why home-produced eggs have higher amounts of PFAS than commercial ones, one theory is that earthworms now contain such chemicals, and hens like to eat the worms. An analysis by environmental groups Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Rivers Trust found that nearly all rivers, lakes and ponds in England exceed proposed safety limits, with 85% containing levels at least five times higher. France has banned tap water in 16 communes due to PFAS contamination, while a piece of investigative journalism called the Forever Pollution Project located 23,000 contaminated sites across Europe and a further 21,500 sites of presumptive contamination. I expect we haven't seen the last of the tap water bans. If the scale and extent of the pollution are hard to get your head around, the health implications are worse. PFAS have been linked to increased risk of various types of cancer, fertility problems, birth complications, delays to puberty and weakened immune systems. They've also been associated with increased cholesterol levels and kidney problems. We're looking at an issue analogous to climate change — right down to lobbying and cover-ups by PFAS manufacturers. Internal documents from 3M Co., one of the original and largest producers, and chemical firm DuPont de Nemours Inc. revealed that the companies knew the substances were accumulating in people and showing signs of toxicity for decades without telling anyone. While 3M still maintains that their PFAS-containing products are 'safe' for their intended uses in everyday life, in December 2022 the company announced it will discontinue the use of PFAS by the end of 2025. Together, the firms have had to pay billions in lawsuit settlements related to their pollution, with more possibly to come as injury cases hit the courts. As with carbon dioxide, the longer we keep emitting PFAS into the environment, the worse the problem gets and the harder it is to clean up with remediation technologies. While the PFAS market globally is worth just over $28 billion, the cost of cleaning up all the related pollution in the UK and Europe could be €100 billion ($116 billion) a year if nothing is done to stem the chemicals' steady flow into the environment. And that doesn't factor in the health-care costs, which the Nordic Council of Ministers estimates is at least €52 billion annually. Though some consumer brands such as outdoor gear retailer Patagonia Inc. and fast-food chain McDonald's Corp. have committed to phasing out PFAS from their products and packaging, others have been dragging their feet. A team of researchers, lawyers and journalists has also exposed a huge lobbying campaign against proposed restrictions in Europe, showing entrenched resistance to change. So we need a ban, but so far, we've only seen piecemeal prohibitions targeting either a specific chemical or, in a couple of leading countries, sectors. The import and sale of PFAS-treated clothing, shoes and waterproofing agents will be barred from July 2026 in Denmark, while the chemicals have been banned in paper and board food packaging since 2020. The country has also recently announced a ban on 23 pesticides that can form a very mobile form of PFAS called trifluoroacetic acid. France, meanwhile, has banned PFAS in several consumer product groups, including textiles, cosmetics and ski wax. Cookware, however, has been excluded from the ban after a campaign led by the French maker of Tefal pans, Groupe SEB. Though it's a start, exempting a sector for which safe alternatives are readily available is, frankly, scandalous. A universal ban may be on its way. In 2023, five European Union member states — Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Norway — submitted a proposal to the European Chemicals Agency, which two scientific committees are now examining. The ban covers both consumer and industrial applications, with time-limited exemptions expected for some uses where there are no alternatives, such as medical devices. What's most significant about the restriction is that it takes a precautionary approach, regulating all 10,000-plus PFAS as a group rather than individually. According to CHEM Trust, a charity focused on harmful synthetic chemicals, under the current rate of regulation that analyses each chemical individually, it would take more than 40,000 years to get through them all. So the EU ban will be a huge step forward with positive impacts beyond its borders. But we'll be waiting a while for it to come into effect — if everything goes smoothly, we're likely looking at 2028 before sectors transition to new rules. Meanwhile, progress elsewhere is pitiful. The UK government published an interim position on PFAS management in June, but this has been criticized by scientists for opting not to target all chemicals at once and instead creating their own groupings. Not only is this risky, failing to regulate compounds that lack toxicity data, but it lacks urgency. In the US, the Trump administration has pulled nearly $15 million in research into PFAS contamination of farmland, while the Environmental Protection Agency has announced plans to rescind drinking water limits for four forever chemicals. Of course, even banning the use of all PFAS tomorrow won't do anything for the substances already in our bodies and drinking water. But we know that restrictions help. Two chemicals — PFOS and PFOA — are already banned in Europe. A 2023 study showed that blood concentrations of the chemicals have declined substantially over time in Denmark. It's time to stop playing Whac-a-Mole with chemicals that we know are bad for us and our environment. If we take action now, we might stand a chance at cleaning up the mess we've made.
Yahoo
13 hours ago
- Health
- Yahoo
Families file lawsuit accusing manufacturers of poisoning their land: 'You don't know what's safe'
Families file lawsuit accusing manufacturers of poisoning their land: 'You don't know what's safe' Landowners in north Georgia have filed a lawsuit alleging that carpet and chemical manufacturers contaminated soil and water with toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as forever chemicals. According to environmental experts, the contamination has exposed nearby families to "catastrophic" levels of PFAS. What's happening? As Atlanta News First reported, Dalton landowners have said that decades of PFAS exposure from companies like 3M, Shaw Industries, and Mohawk Industries have polluted their land, impacting their property values and posed serious health risks. Testing on a family's property near carpet plants in Dalton showed PFAS contamination. Per the lawsuit and attorneys representing Leroy and Amber Fletcher, the landowners, the test found PFAS levels thousands of times higher than the Environmental Protection Agency's limit of four parts per trillion. "It could be in the deer; it could be in the fish," Amber Fletcher said, per Atlanta News First. "You don't know what's safe." Their lawsuit alleges that carpet manufacturers treated flooring materials with PFAS-containing products, which release the forever chemicals through the air. They said the chemicals were dumped into local sewers, which led to the spread of contaminated biosolids on land. The contamination is extensive, according to experts. The lawsuit claims that the companies knew the risks for decades but kept using PFAS without proper warnings or safeguards. Why does the lawsuit matter? PFAS are a group of toxic chemicals often used in the production of various everyday products, including food packaging, cosmetics, nonstick cookware, and clothing. They're also found in food and water. Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly Sometimes Not really I don't know enough about them Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. They are known as forever chemicals because they can take hundreds to thousands of years to break down, potentially contaminating soil, water, and wildlife habitats in the process. PFAS have been linked to multiple negative health effects, including decreased birth weight, kidney and testicular cancer, and increased cholesterol levels, according to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. The Dalton lawsuit could help raise awareness of PFAS contamination and highlight harmful corporate practices that affect nearby communities. What's being done about the contamination? Experts and lawmakers are working to limit human exposure to PFAS. Scientists are exploring ways to either remove them from drinking water or break them down into harmless compounds. Lawmakers are working to reduce PFAS exposure by keeping them out of everyday products. In Illinois, lawmakers passed the PFAS Reduction Act, a bill that aims to ban sales of certain household items containing PFAS by 2032. Similarly, the European Commission is proposing to ban forever chemicals from various consumer products. You can limit your exposure to PFAS by supporting eco-conscious brands. Learning about greenwashing also helps you identify corporate irresponsibility and understand how companies may mislead customers about their products' safety and environmental impacts. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
Washington Post
15 hours ago
- Health
- Washington Post
Amid PFAS fallout, Maine residents navigate medical risks
When Lawrence and Penny Higgins of Fairfield, Maine, learned in 2020 that high levels of toxic chemicals called PFAS tainted their home's well water, they wondered how their health might suffer. They'd been drinking the water for decades, giving it to their pets and farm animals, and using it to irrigate their vegetable garden and fruit trees.
Daily Express
a day ago
- Business
- Daily Express
Vulnerable to pollution, industrial waste issues
Published on: Saturday, July 19, 2025 Published on: Sat, Jul 19, 2025 By: Sisca Humphrey Text Size: Clive said liability limits commonly purchased by companies are often insufficient to cover potential environmental claims. Kota Kinabalu: Many Malaysian businesses may lack adequate insurance protection against pollution and industrial waste incidents, according to a briefing by SP&G Gallagher Insurance Brokers Sdn Bhd (SP&G) Environmental Specialist Clive Goddard. Clive said liability limits commonly purchased by companies are often insufficient to cover potential environmental claims. Advertisement 'It is not unusual to see liability cover capped at RM10 million or less. In some cases, this may not reflect the scale of possible losses,' he said at the Marim Conference 2025 in here on Tuesday. He stated the 1982 Bukit Merah rare earth processing case as an example of long-term environmental damage. 'The incident involved radiation exposure in a Perak town, with cleanup efforts still ongoing decades later,' Clive said. Clive also noted that the costs of decontamination have exceeded RM300 million and most of the burden did not fall under insurance coverage. More recently, the Puchong pipeline fire raised concerns about the state of underground infrastructure and the potential consequences of ground subsidence. He cited that similar issues have occurred with a gas pipeline between Sabah and Sarawak, which experienced several structural failures due to shifting soil. 'Some of these cases have not been widely reported, but they are known within the industry,' he added. Another emerging issue mentioned during the session was the presence of PFAS chemicals in consumer and industrial products. Known for their resistance to breakdown, these substances are increasingly found in water sources and human blood samples globally. Clive said they present regulatory and liability challenges that are still being assessed. He also emphasised on carbon capture and storage (CCS), referencing Petronas' Kasawari project in Sarawak, which aims to store carbon dioxide extracted from offshore gas operations. The initiative is one of several being explored to manage emissions from oil and gas production. Despite these developments, he said there is still limited uptake of comprehensive environmental liability insurance among local firms. 'Policy wordings are often narrow. They may exclude gradual pollution, statutory clean-up costs and other exposures that companies assume are covered,' he said. SP&G Gallagher, part of the global Gallagher insurance group, is encouraging businesses to review their coverage in light of current industrial and legislative changes. This includes recent amendments to the Environmental Quality Act and proposals under public consultation that may place more responsibility on site owners. 'Companies need to be clear on what their policies do and do not cover. This is especially relevant as industrial activity increases under national development plans,' he said. * Follow us on our official WhatsApp channel and Telegram for breaking news alerts and key updates! * Do you have access to the Daily Express e-paper and online exclusive news? Check out subscription plans available. Stay up-to-date by following Daily Express's Telegram channel. Daily Express Malaysia
