Defining PFAS Clearly to Protect Health

At least 24 states have adopted a scientifically grounded definition of PFAS as organic chemicals containing “at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” This definition is also consistent with the one adopted in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2020 and the definition used by the Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development (OECD), an international agency dedicated to promoting economic growth, prosperity and sustainable development. Over 150 PFAS scientists and researchers from across the world have reaffirmed that this definition is the accurate and scientific definition of PFAS.

No. Definitions that exempt certain PFAS like plastic PFAS (i.e. fluoropolymers) or PFAS gases create legal loopholes, resulting in increased proliferation of PFAS.

• Fluoropolymers can be thought of as plasticized PFAS and are used in many consumer products like nonstick cookware and appliances. These chemicals degrade over time, polluting groundwater and drinking water, and ultimately are found in humans.
• Fluorinated gases are just as problematic as other PFAS. These gases are used in refrigerators, heat pumps and electronics. They travel on air currents and degrade into potent water contaminants called TFAs. The levels of TFAs in water have actually increased over the last 20 years due, in part, to the proliferation of fluorinated gases.

Policies that carve out exemptions undermine the goal of reducing exposures in the first place.

No. All PFAS persist or break down into highly persistent PFAS in the environment and are difficult to destroy. This is why they have been called the “forever chemicals.” To protect the health of communities, states must consider the full lifecycle of PFAS, and not just the use of a product containing that PFAS.

The manufacture of PFAS plastic and the products containing them are responsible for much of the historic PFAS contamination. Additionally, the material used in pans and textiles flakes off as microplastics, further impacting our health. Finally, when these products containing PFAS plastics are thrown away, they degrade in landfills and end up in groundwater and then drinking water.

PFAS gases, or ultra-short-chained PFAS, are used in refrigerants and propellants and the use of these gases is growing so fast that they represent the one of the most widespread PFAS pollutant in the world.   Just like other PFAS, these gases have a carbon-fluorine bond that is nearly indestructible.

No. We do not have to sacrifice public health to meet climate goals. Some defenders of PFAS argue that these dangerous chemicals are necessary for climate technologies, claiming that some PFAS are less harmful than others. But PFAS are PFAS. All PFAS pose a risk to health and using “climate sustainability” to justify their continued use is not only misleading, it is dangerous.

PFAS production itself drives the climate crisis, with just one factory producing greenhouse gases equivalent to 125,000 cars. Moreover, many PFAS gases have a high long-term global warming potential because these chemicals don’t break down but rather build up in the atmosphere over time.

Safer alternatives already exist. While some types of PFAS are currently used in certain products like refrigerants and heat pumps, safer alternatives are increasingly available in the marketplace. Given the potential harm from these chemicals, states should set the intention to phase out use in these applications but consider extended timelines to find alternatives and not give exemptions.

For more on this topic, check out Safer States’ Climate Action Without Toxic Chemicals factsheet.