![]() |
Saving Science: PFOA Updateby Matt ShudtzIn CPR’s recent white paper, Saving Science from Politics, Rena Steinzor, Wendy Wagner and I proposed reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to strengthen the Act’s “adverse effects” reporting requirements. Under TSCA, registration of a chemical with EPA triggers a continuing obligation on regulated firms to submit to EPA any information they obtain that “reasonably supports the conclusion” that a chemical or mixture they manufacture, import, process, or distribute “presents a substantial risk of injury to health or the environment.” We think that legal standard gives regulated parties too much discretion.
As we explained in Saving Science, DuPont began studying the human health effects of PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid, a chemical used in manufacturing Teflon) in 1978. By 1981, the company had compiled reports about PFOA in pregnant workers and their offspring, developing “the first direct human evidence of PFOA crossing the placenta in humans,” a startling discovery that greatly increased the risks posed by exposure to even low doses of the chemical. But the first evidence of these studies did not reach EPA for 20 years, and even then, it was not by DuPont’s hand. EPA learned of the studies in 2001, when a West Virginia attorney notified the agency that he’d obtained them through a legal process known as “discovery.” Robert Billott discovered documentation of the studies while investigating a class action lawsuit against DuPont for suspected PFOA contamination of groundwater surrounding a West Virginia plant.
DuPont’s decades-long failure to disclose what it knew about PFOA earned it a hefty fine from EPA. And its failure to prevent PFOA from escaping into the groundwater surrounding its plants has prompted other legal action. In one settlement agreement, DuPont agreed to provide funding for an independent investigation into the public health consequences of its failure to contain PFOA. That independent project is called the C8 Health Project (C8 is another name for PFOA).
The C8 Science Panel (the analytical team associated with the C8 Health Project) is charged with assessing the possibility of a link between PFOA exposure and disease in the communities surrounding DuPont plants. Recently, it released two studies showing extremely high levels of PFOA in the blood of Ohio and West Virginia residents who get their drinking water from sources contaminated by a DuPont plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia. The results also show a correlation between PFOA exposure and high cholesterol levels.
From the panel’s press release:
This news isn’t good. EPA and other public health agencies should had known about the widespread public exposure to PFOA earlier – say, in the early 1980s, soon after DuPont first found evidence suggesting occupational exposure could cause birth defects. Congress needs to revise TSCA to promote earlier disclosure of adverse health effects.
For more on PFOA, also check out EPA’s website.
|