Scientists Unite Against Corporate Attempts to Redefine 'Forever Chemicals'
A coalition of leading environmental scientists is sounding the alarm over industry efforts to narrow the definition of PFAS chemicals, warning that proposed changes could leave thousands of toxic substances unregulated and communities at risk.
The Battle Over Scientific Definitions
The term "forever chemicals" has become synonymous with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) – a class of over 12,000 synthetic chemicals that persist in the environment and human body for decades. But recent lobbying efforts by chemical manufacturers are pushing to significantly restrict which substances qualify as PFAS, a move that scientists say could undermine decades of research and regulatory progress.
At the heart of the controversy is a proposal to limit the PFAS definition to only the most studied compounds, potentially excluding thousands of lesser-known but equally persistent chemicals from future regulations and cleanup efforts.
Why the Current Definition Matters
The current scientific consensus defines PFAS as any chemical containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. This broad definition, developed over years of peer-reviewed research, captures approximately 12,000 to 15,000 substances that share similar environmental persistence and bioaccumulation properties.
Dr. Linda Birnbaum, former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, emphasizes the importance of maintaining this comprehensive approach: "These chemicals are designed to be persistent – that's their function. Whether it's 50 years or 500 years, they don't break down naturally in the environment."
Recent studies have detected PFAS in:
- 99% of Americans' blood samples
- Drinking water supplies serving 200 million people
- Remote Arctic ice and deep ocean trenches
- Fruits, vegetables, and livestock across the globe
Industry's Push for Narrower Definitions
Chemical industry groups argue that the current PFAS definition is too broad and creates unnecessary regulatory burden. They propose focusing only on chemicals with proven persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity – criteria that would exclude thousands of substances from oversight.
The American Chemistry Council has invested millions in lobbying efforts, arguing that many fluorinated chemicals break down more quickly than traditional PFAS and shouldn't face the same restrictions. However, scientists counter that even "shorter-chain" PFAS can transform into more persistent compounds in the environment.
Scientific Community Pushes Back
Over 100 scientists from universities and research institutions worldwide have signed letters opposing attempts to narrow the PFAS definition. Their concerns center on several key points:
Inadequate Safety Data
Most PFAS chemicals lack comprehensive toxicity studies. Of the thousands of PFAS compounds in commercial use, fewer than 1% have been thoroughly tested for human health effects. Narrowing the definition could exempt untested chemicals from future safety requirements.
Environmental Persistence
Research shows that many PFAS initially deemed "safer" actually persist longer in the environment than originally believed. A 2023 study found that some supposedly biodegradable PFAS compounds remained intact in soil samples after five years.
Regulatory Gaps
Countries like Denmark and the Netherlands have adopted broad PFAS definitions for regulatory purposes, leading to more comprehensive restrictions on these substances. A narrower U.S. definition could create international trade complications and weaken global efforts to address PFAS contamination.
Real-World Consequences
The definitional debate has immediate practical implications. Communities dealing with PFAS contamination could find their cleanup efforts limited if the substances affecting them fall outside a narrowed definition. Military bases, airports, and industrial sites across the country are grappling with PFAS cleanup costs estimated at over $400 billion nationally.
Recent cases illustrate the stakes:
- Residents near Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Ohio discovered elevated PFAS levels in their wells, but some contaminating compounds might escape regulation under industry-proposed definitions
- Farmers in Maine found their crops contaminated with PFAS from sewage sludge, raising questions about which chemicals should trigger agricultural restrictions
The Path Forward
As regulatory agencies like the EPA work to finalize PFAS regulations, the scientific community stresses that definitions must be based on peer-reviewed research rather than industry preferences. The agency's recent proposal to regulate PFAS as a class – rather than chemical by chemical – represents a significant step toward comprehensive oversight.
Scientists argue that the precautionary principle should guide policy decisions, especially given PFAS chemicals' known tendency to persist and accumulate in biological systems. As Dr. Birnbaum notes, "We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of the past, where we waited for definitive proof of harm while exposure continued."
The outcome of this definitional debate will likely shape environmental and public health policy for decades to come, determining whether regulatory frameworks can keep pace with the chemical industry's innovation or whether new "forever chemicals" will join the thousands already contaminating our environment.