Are ‘Forever Chemicals’ a Forever Problem?

from The New York Times I'm Sabrina. Tavern and this is the. [Music]. daily this month for the first time the. Environmental Protection Agency began to. regulate a class of synthetic chemicals. known as forever chemicals in America's. drinking water but the chemicals which. have been linked to liver disease and. other serious health problems are in Far. More than just our water.

supply today my colleague Kim Tingley. [Music]. explains it's Wednesday April. [Music]. 17th so Kim anytime the EPA announces a. regulation I think we all sort of take.

take notice because implicit in it is. this idea that we have been exposed to. something something bad potentially lead. or asbest you know and recently the EPA. is regulating a type of chemical known. as pasas so for those who don't know. what are pasas chemicals yeah so P. stands for per and poly floral alkal. substances they're often called Forever. chemical.

just because they persist so long in the. environment and they don't easily break. down and for that reason we also use. them in a ton of consumer products. they're in makeup they're in carpet. they're in non-stick cookware they're in. food packaging all sorts of things yeah. I feel like I've been hearing about. these chemicals actually for a very long. time I mean non-stick pans Teflon right. that's the thing that's in my mind when. I think pasas absolutely yeah this class. of chemicals has been around for decades.

and what's really important about this. is that the EPA has decided for the. first time to regulate them in drinking. water and that's a ruling that stands to. affect tens of millions of people so. help me understand where these things. came from and how it's taken so long to. get to the point where we're actually. regulating them so they really actually. came about a long time ago 1938 Dupont. the people who eventually got us to Eon.

they were actually looking for a more. stable kind of refrigerant and they came. upon this kind of chemical pasas the. thing that all pasas chemicals have is a. really strong bond between carbon atoms. and Florine atoms this particular. pairing is super strong and super. durable they have water repellent. properties they're stain resistant. they're grease resistant and they found. a lot of uses for them initially um in.

World War II they were using them you. know as part of their uranium enrichment. process to do all these kinds of things. and then well good thing it's Teflon you. know in the 1950s is when they really. started to come out as commercial. products even burned food won't stick to. Teflon so it's always easy to clean so. Dupont started using it in Teflon panss. cookware never needs scouring if it has.

Dupont. Teflon and then another company 3M also. started using a kind of P we make Scotch. Guard fabric protector it keeps ordinary. skills from becoming extraordinary. stains in one of their big products. Scotch Guard so you probably remember. spraying that on your shoes if you want. to make your shoes waterproof you Scotch. Guard fabric protector and let your cup. run it. over right Miracle product scotchguard.

Teflon but of course we're talking about. these chemicals because they've been. found to pose Health threats when does. that risk start to. surface yeah so it's pretty early on. that Dupont and 3M start finding effects. in animals and studies that they're. running in. house around the mid 60s they start. seeing that past has an effect on rats.

it's increasing the liver and kidney. weights of the rats and so that seems. problematic and they keep running tests. you know over kind of the next decade. and a half and they try different things. with different animals in one study they. gave monkeys really really high levels. of pasas and those monkeys died and so. they have a pretty strong sense that. these chemicals could be dangerous.

and then in. 1979 they start to see that the workers. that are in the plants manufacturing you. know working with these chemicals that. they're starting to have higher rates of. abnormal liver. function and in a Teflon plant they had. some pregnant workers that were working. with these chemicals and one of those. workers in 1981 gave birth to a child. who had some pretty severe birth. defects and then by the mid 1980s Dupont.

figures out that it's not just their. workers who are being exposed to these. chemicals but communities that are. living in areas surrounding their Teflon. plant particularly the one in parkerburg. West Virginia that those communities. have p in their tap. water wow so based on its own studies. Dupont knows its chemicals are making.

animals sick they seem to be making. workers sick and now they found out that. the chemicals have made their way into. the water supply what did they do with. that information as far as we know they. didn't do much they certainly didn't. tell the residents of parkerburg who. were drinking that water that there was. anything that they needed to be worried. about how is that possible I mean. setting aside the fact that dupan is the. one actually studying the health effects. of its own chemicals presumably to make. sure they're safe we've seen these big.

regulating agencies like the EPA and the. FDA that exist in order to watch out for. something exactly like this right a. company that is producing something that. may be harming Americans why weren't. they keeping a closer watch yeah so it. goes kind of back to the way that we. regulate chemicals in the US it goes. through an act called the toxic. substances Control Act that's. administered by the EPA and basically.

it gives companies a lot of room. to regulate themselves in a sense under. this act they have a responsibility to. report to the EPA you know if they find. these kinds of potential issues with a. chemical they have a responsibility to. you know sort of do their due diligence. when they're putting a chemical out into. the environment but there's really not a. ton of oversight you know the. enforcement mechanism is that the EPA. can find them but this kind of thing can.

happen pretty easily where Dupont keeps. going with something that they think. might really be a problem and then the. fine by the time it plays out is just a. tiny fraction of what Dupont has earned. from producing these chemicals and so. really the incentive is for them to take. the punishment at the end rather than. pull it out early so it seems like. it's kind of just self-reporting which.

is basically self-regulation in a way. yeah I think that that is the way a lot. of advocacy groups and experts have. characterized it to me is that chemical. companies are essentially regulating. themselves so how did this danger. eventually come to light I mean if this. is in some kind of DuPont Vault what. happened well there's a couple different. things that started to happen in the. late 90s. the community around parkerburg West.

Virginia people had reported seeing. really strange symptoms in their. animals cows were losing their hair they. had lesions wow they were behaving. strangely some of their calves were. dying and a lot of people in the. community felt like they were having. health problems that just didn't really. have a good answer mysterious sicknesses. and some cases of.

cancers and so they initiate a class. action lawsuit against. Dupont as part of that class action. lawsuit Dupont at a certain point is. forced to turn over all of their. Internal. Documentation and so what was in the. files was all of that research that we. mentioned all of the studies about. animals workers the birth defect it was.

really the first time that the public. saw what Dupont and 3M had already seen. which is the potential Health harms of. these. chemicals so that seems pretty damning I. mean what happened to the. company so Dupont and 3M are still able. to say you know these were just a few. workers and they were working with high. levels of the chemical. you know more than a person would get.

drinking it in the water and so there's. still sort of an opportunity for this to. be kind of correlation but not causation. there's not really a way to use that. data to prove you know for sure that it. was P that caused these health problems. in other words the company is arguing. look yes these two things exist at the. same time but it doesn't mean that one. caused the other exactly and so one of. the things that this class action.

lawsuit demands in the settlement that. they eventually reach with Dupont is. they want Dupont to fund a formal. Independent Health study of the. communities that are affected by this p. and they're drinking water and so they. want Dupont to pay to figure out for. sure using the best available science. how many of these health problems are. potentially related to their.

chemicals and so they ask them to pay. for it and they get together an. independent group of researchers to. undertake this study and it ends up. being the first and it still might be. the biggest. epidemiological study of p in a. community they've got about. 69,000 participants in this study wow. that's big it's big yeah and what they. ended up deciding was that they could.

confidently say that there was what they. ended up calling a probable link and so. they were really confident that the. chemical exposure that the study. participants had experienced was linked. to high cholesterol ulcerative colitis. thyroid disease testicular cancer kidney. cancer and pregnancy induced. hypertension wow and so those were the. conditions that they were able to say.

with a good degree of certainty were. related to their chemical exposure there. were others that you know they just. didn't have the evidence to reach a. strong conclusion so overall pretty. substantial health effects and and kind. of vindicates the communities in West. Virginia that were claiming that these. chemicals were really affecting their. health absolutely and as the years have. gone on that was sort of just the. beginning of researchers starting to. understand all the different kinds of.

health problems that these chemicals. could potentially be causing and so. since the big Dupont class action study. there's really just been like this. building and building and building of. different researchers coming out with. these different pieces of evidence that. have accumulated to a pretty alarming. picture of what some of the potential. Health outcomes could be.

okay so that really kind of brings us to. the present moment right when it last it. seems the EPA is saying enough is enough. we need to regulate these things yeah it. seems like the EPA has been watching. this preponderance of evidence. accumulate and they're sort of deciding. that it's a real health problem. potentially that they need to regulate.

so the EPA has identified six of these. past chemicals that it's going to. regulate but the concern that I think a. lot of experts have is that this. particular regulation is not going to. keep P out of our bodies. [Music].

[Music]. we'll be right. back so Kim you just said that these. regulations probably won't keep past. chemicals out of our bodies what did you. mean well the EPA is talking about. regulating these six kinds of past but. there are actually more than 10,000. different kinds of past that are already.

being produced and out there in the. environment and why those six exactly I. mean is it because those are the ones. responsible for most of the harm those. are the ones that the EPA has seen. enough evidence about that they are. confident that they are probably causing. harm but it doesn't mean that the other. ones are not also doing something. similar it's just sort of impossible for.

researchers to be able to test each. individual chemical compound and try to. link it to a health outcome I talked to. a lot of researchers who were involved. in this area and they said that you know. they haven't really seen a past that. doesn't have a harm but they just don't. have information on the vast majority of. these compounds so in other words we. just haven't studied the rest of them. enough yet to even know how harmful they.

actually are which is kind of alarming. yeah that's right and there's just new. ones coming out all the time right okay. so of the six that the EPA is actually. intending to regulate though are those. new regulations strict enough to keep. these chemicals out of our bodies so the. regulations for those six chemicals. really only cover getting them out of. the drinking water and drinking water. only really accounts for about 20% of a.

person's overall P exposure wow so only. a fifth of the total exposure yeah there. are lots of other ways that you can come. into contact with past we eat past we. inhale past we rub it on our skin it's. in so many different products and. sometimes those products are not ones. that you would necessarily think of. they're in carpets they're in furniture. they're in dental floss raincoat vinyl.

flooring artificial turf all kinds of. products that you want to be either. waterproof or stain resistant or both. have these chemicals in them so the. cities and towns are going to have to. figure out how to test for and monitor. for these six kinds of pasas and then. they're also going to have to figure out. how to filter them out of the water. supply. I think a lot of people are concerned.

that this is going to be just a really. expensive Endeavor and it's also not. really going to take care of the entire. problem right and if you step back and. really look at the bigger problem the. companies are still making these things. right I mean we're running around trying. to regulate the stuff at the end stage. but these things are still being dumped. into the. environment yeah I think it's like a. huge criticism of our you know.

regulatory policy there's a lot of onus. put on the EPA to prove that a harm has. happened once the chemicals are already. out there and then to regulate the. chemicals and I think that there's a. criticism that we should do things the. other way around right and so tougher. regulations on the front end before it. goes out into the environment and that's. sort of what the European Union has been. doing the European chemicals agency puts.

more of the burden on companies to prove. that their products and their chemicals. are safe and the European chemicals. agency is also right now considering. just a ban on all P products so is that. a kind of model perhaps that a of what a. tough regulation could look like in the. US there's two sides to that question. and the first side is that a lot of.

people feel like it would be better if. these chemical companies had to meet a. higher standard of proof in terms of. demonstrating that their products or. their chemicals are going to be safe. once they've been put out in the. environment the other side is that doing. that kind of upfront research can be. really expensive and could potentially. limit companies who are trying to.

innovate in that space in terms of past. specifically you know this is a really. important chemical for us and a lot of. the things that we use it in there's not. necessarily a great replacement at the. ready that we can just swap in and so. you know it's used in all sorts of like. really important medical devices or. renewable energy Industries or. firefighting foam and in some cases. there are alter Alternatives that might. be safer that companies can use but in.

other cases they just don't have that. yet and so p is still really important. to our daily lives right and and that. kind of leaves us in a pickle right. because we know these things might be. harming us yet we're kind of stuck with. them at least for now so let me just ask. you this question Kim which I've been. wanting to ask you since the beginning. of this episode which is if you're a. person who is concerned about your. exposure to pasas what do you do yeah so.

this is really tricky and I asked. everybody this question who I talk to. and everybody has you know a little bit. of a different answer based on their. circumstance for me what I ended up. doing was getting rid of the things that. I could sort of spot and get rid of and. so you know I got rid of some Carpeting. and I checked you know when I was buying. my son a raincoat that it was was you. know made by a company that didn't use.

P it's also expensive right and so if. you can afford to get a raincoat from a. place that doesn't manufacture P it's. going to cost more than if you buy you. know the budget raincoat and so you know. it's kind of unfair to put the onus on. consumers in that way and it's also just. not necessarily clear where exactly your. exposure is coming from from so you know. I talk to people who said well you know.

it's in dust so I vacuum a lot or you. know it's in my cleaning products so I. use natural cleaning products and so I. think it's really sort of a scattershot. approach that consumers can take but I. don't think that there is a magic. approach that gets you a past free life. so Kim this is pretty dark I have to say. and I think what's frustrating is that. it feels like we have these government.

agencies that you know are supposed to. be protecting our health but when you. drill down here the guidance is really. more like you know you're on your own I. mean it's hard not to just throw up your. hands and say I give. up yeah I think it's really tricky to. try to know kind of what you do with all. of this information as an individual as. much as you can you can try to your. individual exposure but it seems to me.

as though it's at kind of a a regulatory. level that meaningful change would. happen and not so much you know throwing. out your pots and pans and getting new. ones one thing about p is just that. we're in the stage still of trying to. understand exactly what it's doing. inside of us and so there's a certain. amount of research that has to happen. happen in order to both convince people.

that there's a real problem that needs. to be solved and clean up what we've put. out there and so I think that we're sort. of in the middle of that Ark and I think. that that's the point at which people. start looking for. Solutions Kim thank you thank you.

we'll be right. back here's what else you should know. today on Tuesday in day two of jury. selection for the historic hush money. case against Donald Trump lawyers. succeeded in selecting seven jur Ur out. of the 12 that are required for the.

criminal trial after failing to pick a. single juror on Monday lawyers for Trump. repeatedly sought to remove potential. jurors whom they argued were biased. against the president among the reasons. they cited were social media posts. expressing negative views of the former. president and in one case a video posted. by a potential juror of New Yorkers. celebrating Trump's loss in the 2020. election. once a full jury is seated which could.

come as early as Friday the criminal. trial is expected to last about 6. weeks today's episode was produced by. CLA tennis Shannon Lynn summer tamad. Stella tan and Jessica Chung with help. from Sydney Harper it was edited by. Devin Taylor fact checked by Susan Lee. contains original music by Dan Powell. Alicia bitu and in Lozano and was. engineered by Chris Wood our theme music.

is by Jim brunberg and Ben Lanser of. wonderly that's it for the daily I'm. Sabrina tavernes see you tomorrow. [Music].