{"id":4869,"date":"2023-08-18T10:32:18","date_gmt":"2023-08-18T17:32:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/?p=4869"},"modified":"2023-08-18T10:32:18","modified_gmt":"2023-08-18T17:32:18","slug":"epas-new-definition-of-pfas-could-omit-thousands-of-forever-chemicals","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/2023\/08\/18\/epas-new-definition-of-pfas-could-omit-thousands-of-forever-chemicals\/","title":{"rendered":"EPA\u2019s New Definition of PFAS Could Omit Thousands of \u2018Forever Chemicals\u2019"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Pay close attention to how they want to remove forever chemicals used in pharmaceutical products and pesticides. There is also a refrigerant manufacturer in the states responsible for a lot of pollution looking for an exemption for their product. Some of these chemicals are in your water supply and a good reason you need to filter your water<\/a> along with removing aluminum and fluoride which are known neurotoxins. At present PFAS are not regulated in your water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/environment\/2023\/aug\/18\/epa-new-definition-pfas-forever-chemicals<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

<\/div><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n
Agency plans a \u2018case-by-case\u2019 approach that allows for flexibility, but critics say \u2018this is not a new definition \u2013 it is a lack of definition\u2019<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

By Tom Perkins<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US Environmental Protection Agency<\/a> (EPA) office responsible for protecting the public from toxic substances has changed how it defines PFAS for a second time since 2021, a move critics say they fear will exclude thousands of \u201cforever chemicals\u201d from regulation and largely benefit industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead of using a clear definition of what constitutes a PFAS<\/a>, the agency\u2019s Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics plans to take a \u201ccase-by-case\u201d approach that allows it to be more flexible in determining which chemicals should be subjected to regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among other uses for the compounds, the EPA appears to be excluding some chemicals in pharmaceuticals and pesticides that are generally defined as PFAS, current and former EPA officials say, and the shift comes amid fierce industry opposition to proposed limits on the chemicals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The approach puts the toxics office at odds with other EPA divisions, other federal agencies, the European Union, Canada and most of the scientific world. The definition is likely to generate confusion in the chemical industry and within the agency, current and former EPA officials say.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is not a new definition \u2013 it is a lack of definition, and it makes no sense,\u201d said Linda Birnbaum, a former EPA scientist and head of the National Toxicology Program. \u201cIt is just going to lead to terrible confusion.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a class of about 15,000 compounds most frequently used to make products water-, stain- and grease-resistant. They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed \u201cforever chemicals\u201d because they do not naturally break down in the environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a statement to the Guardian, the EPA said its latest definition was more \u201cexpansive\u201d than the previous. Its approach was designed \u201cto focus on substances most likely to be persistent in the environment, including some chemical substances whose structures or sub-structures resemble, at least in part\u201d more thoroughly studied PFAS compounds, like PFOS and PFOA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But public health advocates warn that all PFAS are persistent in the environment and all that have been studied are toxic, and for those reasons many are calling on the government to largely restrict the entire chemical class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal, a current EPA employee in the toxics office said the chemical\u2019s definition has been evolving for several years. The employee said they first learned of the latest change in public comments made by Michal Freedhoff, a Biden-appointed toxics office administrator.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is unclear what prompted the latest shift, the employee said, but it comes as the EPA implements its \u201cPFAS strategic roadmap\u201d to help rein in PFAS pollution. The shifting definition complicates that effort, the employee said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cEPA can\u2019t get its act together on what PFAS are,\u201d they added. \u201cTo regulate PFAS, you have to agree what are and are not PFAS.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The most widely used, inclusive definition, and that proposed by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), defines any chemical with one fluorinated carbon atom as a PFAS. That could include tens of thousands of chemicals on the market and some public health advocates say a narrower definition is warranted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The EPA toxics office in 2021 implemented a \u201cworking definition\u201d that defined PFAS as chemicals that have \u201cat least two adjacent carbon atoms, where one carbon is fully fluorinated and the other is at least partially fluorinated\u201d. It covered about 6,500 PFAS, but the toxics office expanded the definition as the industry exploited loopholes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The employee said debating the definition distracts from the more important effort to quickly regulate PFAS that are already known to be found in people and animals.skip past newsletter promotion<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Current and former EPA employees say the agency is not defining some fluorinated chemicals used in pesticides as PFAS at a time when research has discovered their widespread use<\/a> in agricultural products. The agency also excludes some \u201cultra short chain\u201d PFAS refrigerants, which are defined as PFAS by the European Union but not the toxics office, said Tim Whitehouse, a former EPA attorney now with the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility nonprofit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He said the stricter regulations in Europe have forced the industry away from the kind of PFAS refrigerants produced by Chemours, a chemical manufacturer with a plant in North Carolina. Chemours opposes defining the refrigerants as PFAS \u201cbecause it is going to destroy their market\u201d as it has in Europe, Whitehouse added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consequences of the EPA\u2019s narrower definition have already been felt in North Carolina\u2019s Cape Fear basin, which is contending with decades of Chemours pollution. A 2019 citizen group petition asked the EPA to conduct studies that would shed light on the health impacts of 54 PFAS compounds found in human blood and water in the region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the agency\u2019s December 2021 response, it declined to test for 15 chemicals it said \u201cdo not meet\u201d the toxics office PFAS definition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The change also creates uncertainty for chemical companies who are producing substances that may or may not fall within the definition, which Kyla Bennett, a former EPA official now with PEER, characterized as \u201cinsanely frustrating\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe EPA claims they switched to a case-by-case basis to remain flexible, but in the past it has said, \u2018We want to provide regulatory certainty,\u2019 but this is the furthest from regulatory certainty that I can think of,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The White House\u2019s Office of Science and Technology coordinates among federal agencies could provide guidance to federal agencies on which definition to use, but it has failed to do so, Bennett said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe bottom line is the EPA has one job and that is to protect human health and the environment, and when it comes to PFAS they are not,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Pay close attention to how they want to remove forever chemicals used in pharmaceutical products and pesticides. There is also a refrigerant manufacturer in the states responsible for a lot of pollution looking for an exemption for their product. Some of these chemicals are in your water supply and a good reason you need to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4869","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health"],"blocksy_meta":[],"featured_image_src":null,"author_info":{"display_name":"Jason","author_link":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/author\/jturning\/"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4869","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4869"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4869\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4871,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4869\/revisions\/4871"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4869"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4869"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/jasonsblog.ddns.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4869"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}