'You May Be Entitled to Compensation’

By now, virtually everyone has heard the words: “If you lost a loved one to an illness from the drinking water at Camp Lejeune … ,” you may be entitled to compensation because of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). It’s the largest mass tort TV ad campaign in history. “Dark Waters,” the 2019 legal drama about a PFAS case, evoked similar emotions with these words: “The system is rigged. They want us to believe that it'll protect us, but that's a lie. We protect us. We do. Nobody else. Not the companies, not the scientists, not the government. Us.”

What you may not know is there are an estimated 20,000 PFAS compounds in overwhelmingly safe consumer products and they are ubiquitous in humans and the environment. Regulatory and lawsuit decisions to control all PFAS chemicals are likely to result in the largest environmental costs in United States history, even as current science shows that the health benefits of those decisions are, at best, questionable.

PFAS were discovered in the 1930s by the German company IG Farben and commercialized in later decades. Today, in addition to large companies, there are “thousands of entities in scores of industries” facing large payouts or even bankruptcy, and the lawsuits could continue for decades.

Litigation targets include PFAS manufacturers, importers, transporters, restaurants, semiconductors, building materials, electronics, medical devices, electronic components. seafood, 5G networks, food, clothing, carpeting, cosmetics, cleaning supplies, firefighting foam, cookware, tire seal, and dog treats.

Already, 13 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits but thousands more are coming. In the past six years, 27 lawsuits have been filed against the U.S. government (among the thousands of cases just for firefighting foams), which is claiming immunity.

In fact, with an estimated 97% of Americans having traces of PFAS in their bodies, and with 332 million of us and hundreds of thousands of manufacturers and retailers, the number of potential lawsuits runs into the millions. The costs, which will be passed on to consumers or taxpayers in some form, will be billions.

EPA regulations are also going to be very costly. The agency has set a maximum contaminant allowable level (MCL) of four parts per trillion (like four drops in an Olympic swimming pool) for drinking water. Unlike other authorities, the EPA claims just one type of PFAS, PFOA, could cause cancer, and its MCL is more than 100 times lower than the safe health level set for Australia. One estimate by the American Water Works Company suggests that just the cost of drinking water cleanup could exceed $47 billion.

But that pales in comparison to one estimate of removing PFAS from the world’s environment that would exceed the global GDP: $106 trillion (more than four years of U.S. GDP). If we sue and regulate all of these products to get down to infinitesimal traces of PFAS chemicals, it could essentially destroy the American economy. Is it worth it

There are other illnesses linked to PFAS, but according to EPA (and perhaps only EPA), cancer may be the most important. Eighteen epidemiologic studies showed some statistically significant positive associations with cancer but were offset by negative findings that did not find an exposure-response relationship. They also didn’t find the same tumors found in studies of animals or more highly exposed workers. Unfortunately, the high doses of PFAS some groups have fed to animals cannot always show what low doses do to humans. For a number of reasons, humans are often more resilient, which has been necessary for us to survive and evolve.

It’s impossible to have an honest debate without acknowledging that exposure to small amounts of toxins occurs routinely and is essential for life’s evolution. Each of our 30 trillion cells “receives tens of thousands of DNA lesions from both our own metabolism and the environment every single day that must be repaired by the body.” This means tiny amounts of PFAS or many other chemicals are not likely to cause harm.

Yet, some would prefer we simply be precautionary. Perhaps. But the enormous amounts of resources being spent by either governments or consumers would almost certainly be better spent on reducing more serious killers such as heart disease and diabetes. It could also be better spent addressing climate risks, crime, terrorism or poverty.

While “Dark Waters” made for great drama, it’s just that, and perhaps another source of alarmism. Some PFAS chemicals may present harm at high enough doses, as all chemicals do (including water), but it’s way too early to try and bankrupt the country. At some point, Congress must step in to limit the damage that can occur through courts or regulatory agencies.

—Richard Williams is Board Chair of Center for Truth in Science and former FDA official. Michael Dourson is Director for Science at Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment and a former EPA official.

https://www.realclearhealth.com/blog/2024/04/15/you_may_be_entitled_to_compensation_1025028.html