Enemies of the People: DuPont and 3M Knew of PFAS Dangers, But Covered It up for 40+ Years

The study in question began in September 2020. The research was conducted by Nadia Gaber, UC San Francisco; Lisa Bero, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus; and, Tracey J Woodruff, UC San Francisco, United States.

They first organised and analysed industry documents regarding chemicals of the PFAS family, archived in special collections of the UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library (CIDL). The initial aim was to compare reports and comments on health research from the internal documents to the public record, establishing a comparative timeline. The second objective was to evaluate the strategies involved in delaying or obscuring the public health knowledge of the harms of PFAS.

They started by applying deductive codes from published studies in the literature detailing industry strategies of manipulating science. Because the body of documents available was relatively small (only 39), it was possible to read each document and assess whether it matched the codes of interest.

What was known to the public could be traced from PubMed search results. Only 66 studies were published before 1980. In comparison, from 2002 to 2020, more than 2,500 papers were published.

One of the earliest studies in the research, in 1959, examined potential respiratory and dermal toxicity from the manufacture of new plastics, including PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene, commonly known by its trade name, Teflon). Over the years there were many reports, but the manufacturers were never indicted.

The UCSF researchers, however, identified documents supporting industry influence of science and policy in four of the six strategy areas.

One criterion was influencing the research question itself. Herein, industry decides what to study, or not, in order to produce evidence detracting from harms of their product. In 1978, DuPont’s occupational physician noted “unusually high” liver enzyme elevations but dismissed findings as clinically insignificant, despite inadequate statistical power, neglecting to pursue research.

Another tool employed was to fund and publish favourable research. In 1996, 3M funded a study of occupationally exposed men and found no clinical hepatic toxicity.

Then, of course, was the ploy of suppressing unfavourable research. The UCSF researchers found several such instances. As early as 1961, it was found that PFAS compounds C6, C9, and ART increased the liver size of rats even at low doses, should be handled “with extreme care." Four years later, an Industry Lab report found C8 “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when injected.” Much later, in 1994, 3M knew of “possible” prostate cancer and shared the details with DuPont.

The chemical manufacturers also distorted public discourse. 3M internal communications from 1980 described C8 as “about as toxic as table salt." A year later, joint employee communications denied that workers had been exposed at levels that could cause adverse health effects, and also denied adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Worse, they even tried to change or set scientific standards. In 1991, DuPont insisted that no Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notification was warranted, years after determining that PFAS were a chronic hazard. In 2000, DuPont insisted to public water utility officials that its own exposure guidelines were enough.

And, it is not that the PFAS manufacturers did not know of the effects. By 1981, DuPont had removed women of childbearing age from any potential exposure to C8, that was deemed by the researchers as a covert admission of harm. By 1994, DuPont’s internal reports state the company should “evaluate replacement of C-8 with other, less toxic materials.”

Gaber, Bero and Woodruff concluded: Our review of industry documents shows that companies knew PFAS was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested” by 1970, forty years before the public health community. Further, the industry used several strategies that have been shown common to tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries to influence science and regulation—most notably, suppressing unfavorable research and distorting public discourse.

PFAS compounds, known for their waterproofing abilities, have been a favourite in the fashion industry. In spite of a piling heap of evidence showing how harmful PFAS in clothing is for humans, there have been only few who have categorically removed PFAS products from their product lines or ranges.

And it is not that the PFAS manufacturers have wizened up. They are still at their old, diabolical game. After the EPA in March this year proposed regulations setting limits on PFAS compounds in drinking water, 3M and Chemours Company (which was hived off from DuPont in 2015), submitted comments opposing the rules.

While most of what has appeared in the public domain is to do with health risks, the manufacturers themselves have got less—adverse—mileage. But, late last month, nonprofit ChemSec published a report detailing the players who are in the PFAS game.

Its findings were succinct, but tell-tale:

• The global societal costs—remediation, health care, etc—of PFAS chemicals amount to €16 trillion per year.
• The average market price of PFAS is €19 per kilogram. However, if the societal costs are included, the accurate price would be as high as €18,734 per kilogram. 
• Last year, the global market size for PFAS was just over $28 billion (€26B). That might sound like a lot of money, but it is peanuts compared to the market size of all chemicals, which sits at $4.73 trillion. That means that PFAS production is just 0.5% of the total chemical production.
• Just twelve chemical companies are responsible for the majority of the global PFAS production: AGC, Arkema, Chemours, Daikin, 3M, Solvay, Dongyue, Archroma, Merck, Bayer, BASF and Honeywell.
• The Vanguard Group is among the top three investors in a number of these companies: 3M, BASF, Dongyue, Bayer, Honeywell, Chemours, Arkema and Solvay.
  
  As far as fashion is concerned, the pressure to eliminate PFAS compounds still come from outside. There is precious little from within to do the needful. Nevertheless:
• The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) is organising an event 'Navigating a Path Forward for PFAS in Textiles' in the US in July.
• Denim manufacturer Mount Vernon Mills in Georgia, US, will stop using PFAS by 31 December. This follows a lawsuit settlement with the Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) and Coosa River Basin Initiative (CRBI).
• The New York state legislature has passed a bill modifying previous legislation that largely bans PFAS in clothing. The amendment expands the scope of the ban to capture the use of intentionally added PFAS in a broader range of apparel, including clothing items intended for “regular wear or formal occasions including, but not limited to, undergarments, shirts, pants, skirts, dresses, overalls, bodysuits, vests, dancewear, suits, saris, scarves, tops, leggings, leisurewear, formal wear,” outdoor apparel and children’s clothes, including onesies, bibs and diapers. Previously, outdoor apparel and outerwear had been exempted.
• A recent analysis of fresh-water fish samples collected by the Environmental Protection Agency found PFAS contamination is an issue in almost every state. The chemicals have become so pervasive that studies show more than 95% of Americans have "detectable levels" of PFAS in their blood.

What is surprising is that in spite of the scientific evidence that snowballs by the day, the fashion industry remains true to its reputation: it remains a laggard and lethargic.