A group of 20 scientists is warning that moves to narrow the definition of PFAS — commonly known as “forever chemicals” — could limit regulation and put public and environmental health at greater risk.
Rachel Salvidge reports for The Guardian.
In short:
- Scientists say efforts to change the current broad definition of PFAS are driven by political and economic motives, not science, and could allow some toxic chemicals to escape regulation.
- The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) is reviewing PFAS definitions, sparking concern that its project could grant legitimacy to a weaker regulatory approach.
- Regulators in the European Union and the UK rely on existing definitions to develop bans and monitoring programs, and a narrower classification could undermine this work, scientists argue.
Key quote:
“An IUpac-endorsed and potentially narrower Pfas definition could confer undue legitimacy … and influence regulatory bodies and others to adopt less protective policies.”
— Authors of the Environmental Science & Technology Letters commentary
Why this matters:
PFAS chemicals are used in everything from water-resistant clothing to food packaging and firefighting foams, and they don’t break down in the environment. They accumulate in soil, water, and human bodies, and some have been linked to cancer, immune suppression, and developmental delays in children. Efforts to regulate PFAS hinge on how the chemicals are defined; a narrow definition could leave thousands of similar compounds unchecked. Industry groups often push to limit regulation by casting doubt or complicating definitions, a tactic seen before with lead, tobacco, and asbestos. Scientists say a strong, science-based PFAS definition is vital to protect health and prevent long-term contamination.
Read more: New EPA reorganization may quietly dismantle chemical health watchdog
