PFAS is a class of chemicals that can linger almost permanently in air, water and soil. Research suggests they are associated with a variety of health issues, including cancer.
For the first time, the Environmental Protection Agency has established national limits for six types of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in drinking water.
The substances, known by the initialism PFAS, are nicknamed “forever chemicals” because they barely degrade and are nearly impossible to destroy, so they can linger permanently in air, water and soil.
As a class of chemicals, PFAS have been associated with a higher risk of certain cancers, heart disease, high cholesterol, thyroid disease, low birth weight and reproductive issues, including decreased fertility.
Most people in the U.S. have PFAS in their blood, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.
The EPA is actually a little bit ahead of the EU here.
The EU has had limits on PFAS in food since the start of 2023, and limits on PFAS in drinking water are coming into force in 2026, though I know Sweden has already put a limit in place. There is also a proposed bill to ban the manufacture and use of PFAS altogether in the EU.
There are also in the process of banning them in France. The link also says Denmark was the first country to ban them in 2020. https://www.euronews.com/green/2024/04/05/france-moves-to-ban-forever-chemicals-in-products-but-lobbyists-fight-to-keep-nonstick-pan
Has SCOTUS struck down Chevron yet like I’m thinking they probably will?
Enjoy having your blood be 50% PFAS.
No, the case is still pending: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/22-451
Thanks. I didn’t think they had, but I still think they will.
FWIW the most recent analysis I came across from a law professor makes me think the emergence of the “major questions doctrine” is more concerning:
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the US Supreme Court will decide whether to overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents—its 1984 opinion in Chevron v. NRDC. The decision in Loper may change the language that lawyers use in briefs and professors use in class, but is unlikely to significantly affect case outcomes involving interpretation of the statutes that agencies administer. In practice, it’s the court’s new major questions doctrine announced in 2021 that could fundamentally change how agencies operate.
…
I am much more concerned about the court’s 2021 decision to create the “major questions doctrine” and to apply it in four other cases than I am about the effects of a potential reversal of Chevron in Loper. Lower courts are beginning to rely on the major questions doctrine as the basis to overturn scores of agency decisions. That doctrine has potential to make it impossible for any agency to take any significant action.
On a few forever chemicals out of the thousands.
EPA bad!
– Republicans probably
Oh definitely.
I heard this on Fox News yesterday. They went with the “it’s going to increase costs for small towns” angle.
