Search

By EPN Staff

The Texas attorney general’s lawsuit against DuPont and 3M and a Republican legislator’s proposal to tighten restrictions on fertilizer production, sale and use are among the latest state-based efforts to target polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a family of compounds described as forever chemicals because they accumulate in water, plants and animals and don’t break down.

Why it matters

Federal and state authorities have increasingly focused attention on PFAS in recent years, as testing has revealed their presence in much of the country’s drinking water as well as in people’s blood.

The collection of industrially produced compounds are nearly everywhere and manufactured into firefighting foam and popular consumer goods such as rain gear, smartwatch bands, non-stick cookware, lithium-ion batteries, and menstrual and incontinence products.

Researchers have connected some of the compounds to cancer, birth defects and liver and thyroid problems. Versions were sold for decades in non-stick products like Teflon, Stainmaster and Scotchgard, all of which are targeted in the new suit.

Lawsuit: ‘Serious harm’

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office said the new suit, filed in December, “marks a new stage in PFAS litigation.” It argues that 3M, DuPont and spin off companies violated deceptive trade laws, and the suit contains numerous advertising examples showing babies on carpets treated with stain-repelling PFAS chemicals and mothers cooking on chemically treated cookware.

“These companies knew for decades that PFAS chemicals could cause serious harm to human health yet continued to advertise them as safe for household use around families and children,” Paxton said.

Spokespeople for DuPont, 3M and Corteva, a parent company for DuPont spinoffs, did not respond to an email seeking comment on the suit. A DuPont spokesperson told The Texas Tribune when the suit was filed that the company believes “this complaint is without merit, and we look forward to vigorously defending our record of safety, health and environmental stewardship.”

Regulating biosolids

While Texas previously sued over PFAS usage in firefighting foam, and the cities of Waco, San Angelo and Fort Worth joined 5,600 plaintiffs in a class action suit against manufacturers of firefighting foam, farmers in the state recently filed suit alleging their livestock died after exposure to fertilizer that contained PFAS because the fertilizer was made from human waste.

The use of biosolids, or sewage sludge, involves semi-solid byproducts from wastewater treatment plants commonly applied to land as fertilizer. Because PFAS are prevalent in so many products and drinking water, the compounds often show up in wastewater, too.

The EPA doesn’t require PFAS testing in biosolids, instead leaving it to states to determine whether to establish acceptable thresholds. HB1674 is proposed to require such testing and was filed in response to the farmers’ lawsuit.  

The bigger picture

Thirty-one states have filed litigation related to PFAS, including:

But in 2023, the Department of Defense issued a study that underscored the prevalence and importance of PFAS, and highlighted the costs and challenges associated with eliminating and replacing them.

“PFAS are chemically quite stable, and many are water and oil repellent, heat resistant, and/or stain resistant, often leading to non-stick surfaces on various materials. Examples of applications of PFAS are in plastics, o-rings, gaskets, lubricants, coolants, and fabrics,” the report noted. “DoD is reliant on the critically important chemical and physical properties of PFAS to provide required performance for the technologies and consumable items and articles which enable military readiness and sustainment.”

  • Share: