EPA Hearing On Two Major PFAS Chemicals Leads To Calls For Cancer Warnings

A panel of scientific advisors is recommending that federal regulators label some PFAS chemicals, which have polluted drinking water sources throughout the United States after years of use in firefighting foam and other products, as likely human carcinogens.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Science Advisory Board met for four days over the second half of December and the beginning of January, to advise the agency on how it should approach a national drinking water rulemaking for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), focusing on the two most commonly cited and studied PFAS compounds, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). The board recommended the EPA label both as โ€œlikely carcinogensโ€ based on the current scientific evidence available.

The hearing comes after the EPA announced a Strategic Roadmap designed to address problems with PFAS chemicals, which are used in everything from firefighting foam to furniture, in mid-October. The plan includes new reporting requirements and restrictions, increased research, and accelerated cleanup operations.

PFAS were first introduced into the manufacturing industry in the 1940โ€™s, because of their ability to resist heat, grease, stains, and water. However, since then the chemicals have been linked to a myriad of adverse health effects including liver damage, thyroid disease, decreased fertility, high cholesterol, obesity, hormone suppression, and cancer.

While the chemical are found in a wide variety of products, including some food packaging materials, pizza boxes, popcorn bags, fabrics, nonstick cooking pans, and other products, most of the concerns have focused on high volumes of the PFAS chemicals that entered drinking water supplies from aqueous film-forming foams (AFFFs) widely used near airports, military bases and firefighting training centers.

AFFF Cancer Lawsuit
AFFF Cancer Lawsuit

The hearing was designed to help the EPA set Maximum Containment Levels (MCLs) for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water by the fall of 2022, seeking guidance on the analysis and presentation of scientific literature, what the cancer classifications of the two chemicals should be, and whether the agency was relying on good science to make its decisions.

The advisory panelโ€™s recommendations are not binding on the agency, but often have a significant influence on the EPAโ€™s final rulemakings.

The board agreed with the EPAโ€™s current proposal to classify PFOA as a โ€œlikely carcinogenโ€, but disagreed with the EPAโ€™s proposed classification of PFOS as a โ€œsuggestive carcinogenโ€, instead saying that chemical should get the โ€œlikely carcinogenโ€ label as well.

In addition, the panel warned the EPA that its choice of which studies to use and which to not use lacked transparency, and said some of those choices were inconsistent with the established review process for chemical hazards.

The EPAโ€™s anticipated rulemaking on the two chemicals considered the most significant PFAS compounds comes as states and environmental groups have pushed for more action on the toxic chemicals.

In July,ย Maine put in place a ban on PFAS which will go into effect by 2030. In addition to Maine, New York set guidelines last January which set limits on allowable concentrations on some PFAS chemicals. Additionally, also in July, two U.S. Senators introduced a bill which would ban the use of PFAS in cosmetics.

Chemical manufacturers now face a growing number ofย firefighting foam PFAS lawsuitsย brought by nationwide, including individuals diagnosed with with cancer after exposure to the chemicals in their drinking water, as well as firefighters directly exposed during training and response exercises.

Written by: Irvin Jackson

Senior Legal Journalist & Contributing Editor

Irvin Jackson is a senior investigative reporter at AboutLawsuits.com with more than 30 years of experience covering mass tort litigation, environmental policy, and consumer safety. He previously served as Associate Editor at Inside the EPA and contributes original reporting on product liability lawsuits, regulatory failures, and nationwide litigation trends.




0 Comments


This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Share Your Comments

This field is hidden when viewing the form
I authorize the above comments be posted on this page
Post Comment
Weekly Digest Opt-In

Want your comments reviewed by a lawyer?

To have an attorney review your comments and contact you about a potential case, provide your contact information below. This will not be published.

NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

MORE TOP STORIES

An Abbott spinal cord stimulator lawsuit filed by three women says the product was defectively designed, inappropriately approved by the FDA, and left them with severe injuries, worsening pain and the need for removal surgery.
A Georgia couple’s lawsuit claims the makers of Dupixent failed to provide adequate warnings about the risk of mycosis fungoides, a type of T-cell lymphoma.