MAY 1, 2015
A top federal health official and hundreds of environmental
scientists on Friday voiced new health concerns about a common class of
chemicals used in products as varied as pizza boxes and carpet treatments.
The concerted public campaign renews a years-old debate
about a class of chemicals known as poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs.
After studies showed that some PFASs lingered in people’s bodies for years, and
appeared to increase the risks of cancer and other
health problems, the chemical manufacturer DuPont banned the use of one type of
PFAS in its popular Teflon products, and other companies followed suit.
At issue now are replacement chemicals developed by those manufacturers
and used in thousands of
products, including electronics, footwear, sleeping bags, tents, protective
gear for firefighters and even the foams used to extinguish fires.
The companies assert that the alternatives are safe and
vehemently contest the scientists’ contentions, pointing to extensive studies
conducted in the last decade or so.
PFASs have strong water-resistant properties; pizza boxes,
for example, stay sturdy even when grease seeps into the cardboard. This means that they can "resist" or "suffocate" life itself, the same way the other man-made chemicals have done: DDT, TCE, PCE, chlordane, and so on.
But two separate salvos fired on Friday question whether
enough research has been done to justify the chemical industry’s confidence in
the safety of this crop of PFASs.
“Research is needed to find safe alternatives for all
current uses of PFASs,” Linda S. Birnbaum, the head of the national toxicology
program for the Department
of Health and Human Services, wrote
in a commentary piece published Friday in Environmental Health Perspectives. “The
question is, should these chemicals continue to be used in consumer products in
the meantime, given their persistence in the environment?”
The journal, published by the National Institutes of Health,
devoted several pages to the issue, with articles from researchers and from the
industry trade group.
A statement signed
by 200 international scientists — environmental health experts, toxicologists,
epidemiologists and others — urged countries around the world to restrict
the use of PFASs.
“We call on the international community to cooperate in
limiting the production and use of PFASs,” the statement said.
In a counterpoint, the American Chemistry Council, the
industry trade association, argued that the statement ignored the fact that
such chemicals use “essential technology for many aspects of modern life,” and
that tests, reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency, concluded that
these alternatives were safer than the chemicals they were replacing.
The PFAS family of chemicals represents an important part of
DuPont’s $34.7
billion in sales last year.
Thomas H. Samples, the company’s head of risk management for
the division that manufactures these chemicals, rejected the scientists’
concerns.
“We don’t dismiss the right of folks to debate this,” Mr.
Samples said. “But we just believe based on the 10-year history of extensive
studies done on the alternatives, that the regulatory agencies have done their
job of determining that these things are safe for their intended uses.”
This business sector, the fluoro-technology industry, is
considerable and reached $19.7 billion in sales in 2013, according to the most
recent estimate from the FluoroCouncil, a division of the American Chemistry
Council.
This class of chemicals is known for its durability. PFASs
have strong water-resistant properties. Cardboard pizza boxes treated with the
chemicals, for example, stay sturdy even when grease seeps into them.
But some of these same features worry environmental health
specialists because traces of the chemicals linger and have been detected in
the bloodstream of a large segment of the population, although typically at
low levels. In some cases, detectable levels of the older class chemicals have
been declining as major manufacturers have developed alternatives they say are
safer.
Some researchers cite lingering concerns about a chemical
spill more than a decade ago. The health of residents of Parkersburg, W.Va., is
still monitored related to a spill of an older form of PFAS from a nearby
chemical plant. A class-action lawsuit accused DuPont, which owned the plant,
of knowingly contaminating the residents’ groundwater, and the company faces
new accusations, in a separate report being issued
Friday by the nonprofit Environmental Working
Group, that it is not living up to the terms of a court settlement.
Mr. Samples, from DuPont, which is based in Delaware,
disputed any suggestion that it was not complying with those terms.
But Dr. Paul Brooks, who helped conduct a study in the West
Virginia case that found
probable links between the chemical and health issues like thyroid disease and
kidney cancer, said DuPont needed to do more to ensure that local residents
were participating in the monitoring program. He said he was not convinced that
the alternative chemicals that DuPont and other companies were selling would
eliminate the health threat.
“When you have something that is a first cousin or
brother-in-law to a chemical that we are certain is carcinogenic, you have to
somehow prove that it is safe before you use it — that it is not injurious,” he
said. “You just have to be cautious.”
Some environmental scientists point to a chemical called
GenX as an example of a newer but questionable alternative. Some studies have
linked GenX to short-term symptoms like eye and skin irritation in humans, as
well as liver damage in animals. Mr. Samples, of DuPont, which manufacturers
GenX, said that the tests involved exposing animals to levels so concentrated
that they were intended to cause health complications. He also said the
chemical was used in industrial settings, not as an ingredient in consumer
products.
Still, environmental and health specialists are urging
consumers to avoid products containing PFASs “whenever possible.”
“It’s likely they’re going to have some health effects, it
just may take us a while to figure out what it is,” said Thomas F. Webster, a
professor of environmental health at Boston University’s school of public
health who was an author of a paper seeking more scrutiny of PFASs. “It might
take five or 10 years to really do the research.”
Source: http://www.nytimes.com