Josh Goozman | US Environmental Policy Student
Whether it is in your clothes, drinking water, food packaging, or shampoo, chances are you have come into contact with PFAS in your life. In fact, 99% of Americans have these chemicals in their body.[1]
The acronym PFAS encompasses a class of chemicals known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances characterized by a very strong carbon-fluorine bond. This bond’s strength makes them extremely resistant to degradation, and thus they remain in the human body and natural ecosystems for extended periods of time. This is how they received the moniker of “forever chemicals.”[2]
PFAS were originally manufactured in the 1940s for use in nonstick cookware by a chemical company called DuPont.[3] Since then, PFAS has become nearly ubiquitous in manufacturing, with uses in everything from cleaning products to packaging to fire-fighting foam.[4] Their harmful effects on humans and other organisms did not become evident until the early 2000s, when a class action lawsuit was filed against DuPont by West Virginia residents who claimed to be suffering adverse health effects due to PFAS contamination in their drinking water. Since then, it has become clear that the only way to curb PFAS exposures is via government regulation. Whether that is EPA standards, new legislation, or altering the Clean Water Act, the problem is so ubiquitous that it cannot be solved with voluntary actions.
Considering how pervasive PFAS chemicals still are in our society today, there is major cause for concern. Perhaps the most well-known issue is drinking water contamination, which is present in all 50 states, but PFAS are also found in everyday items like food packaging and personal care products.[5] Even for someone who is aware of the injurious effects of PFAS, it is nearly impossible to avoid them in American society. To make matters worse, stopping production would only help marginally since all of the PFAS that have ever been produced still exist somewhere in manufactured products, living organisms, or the environment.
Research into the health effects of PFAS is ongoing and has yielded concerning results. The sheer number of PFAS compounds makes studying each one at various concentrations impractical, but scientists can extrapolate the worrying results from experiments with characteristic PFAS chemicals. The group of plaintiffs in the West Virginia class action suit against DuPont had abnormally high rates of kidney cancer and thyroid disease, to name a couple examples.[6] From this and other studies, the EPA has warned of reproductive, developmental, immune, endocrine, and carcinogenic effects. To compound the problem, PFAS are extremely potent. They are measured in parts per trillion, yet even that amount can result in deadly health effects.[7]
This begs the question, is there anything we can do? As individuals, it is essentially impossible to avoid PFAS entirely in our lives. We can test our water, avoid microwaving plastic, and take precautions cleaning dryer lint, and yet still be exposed. Plastic is everywhere and most plastics contain PFAS. To make matters worse, these chemicals just accumulate in the human body, posing increasing risk with greater concentrations. Of course, every little exposure matters, but the situation does not exactly foster optimism. Change will need to come from the government and large manufacturing corporations, not just individuals. Otherwise, all of humanity could be subject to the adverse health effects of PFAS for generations to come.
In 2024, the EPA finally took action, establishing the first national drinking water standards for PFAS. Regulations were imposed on five of the most common individual chemicals, along with certain mixtures, and $1 billion allocated to aid states in implementation.[8] Two of those chemicals were limited to 4 parts per trillion, but the regulation of the others is much more convoluted, using a “hazard index” approach.[9] Despite this progress, the delayed compliance timeline did not force rapid remediation. Endorsed by the Biden-Harris administration, these regulations came under scrutiny when President Trump took office in January.
In his hearing for EPA administrator, former representative Lee Zeldin indicated that PFAS would be a “top priority,” emphasizing his previous support for PFAS legislation.[10] This somewhat eased the fears of concerned lawmakers, but with President Trump entering office, no one could be certain. Lo and behold, the Trump administration withdrew the plan from the ongoing review process, halting all efforts to enforce a federal limit on PFAS.[11] States may enforce their own limits, but those will not be as far-reaching or effective. The implications of this will only be revealed with time, but it almost certainly will have negative effects on human health. The regulations would have forced significant investments into PFAS cleanup and made the environment a safer place for animals and humans alike. Perhaps the ideal route for improvement is legislative action, but partisan politics makes collaboration extremely difficult. As we saw above, even the EPA changes policy frequently (especially when new leadership takes office), so it is hard to imagine that Congress could successfully pass a bill.[12] Amendments to the Clean Water Act would be a feasible idea if not for this gridlock. Political polarization in Congress has made inaction the norm, since agreements cannot be made. In our constantly changing world, inaction will never be the solution. Whether we think about PFAS, climate change, or one of the many other environmental issues, strong federal action is the most efficient and effective way to make large-scale changes. But with congressional gridlock and changing administrations, this simply is not happening
[1] “What are PFAS chemicals?,” Environmental Working Group, 2019, https://www.ewg.org/what-are-pfas-chemicals (accessed February 27, 2025).
[2] Molly Ginty and Courtney Lindwall, “‘Forever Chemicals’ Called PFAS Show Up in Your Food, Clothes, and Home,” Natural Resources Defense Council, April 2024, https://www.nrdc.org/stories/forever-chemicals-called-pfas-show-your-food-clothes-and-home (accessed February 27, 2025).
[3] “What are PFAS chemicals?,” 2019
[4] “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” US Food and Drug Administration, January 2025, https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas (accessed February 27, 2025).
[5] Ginty and Lindwall, 2024
[6] Ibid.
[7] “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” 2025
[8] “Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes First-Ever National Drinking Water Standard to Protect 100M People from PFAS Pollution,” US Environmental Protection Agency, April, 2024, https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-administration-finalizes-first-ever-national-drinking-water-standard (accessed February 27, 2025).
[9] Gintyand Lindwall, 2024
[10] Jennifer McLogan, “Trump’s halting of EPA limits on PFAS in drinking water “a tragic setback,” Long Island environmentalist says,” CBS News New York, January 2025, https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/trump-drinking-water-regulations-forever-chemicals-pfas/ (accessed February 27, 2025).
[11] “Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes First-Ever National Drinking Water Standard to Protect 100M People from PFAS Pollution,” 2024
[12] “Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes First-Ever National Drinking Water Standard to Protect 100M People from PFAS Pollution,” 2024
I think issues like PFAS are some of the scarier environmental issues we face today, since they’re so insidious and have the potential for such concerning health issues. Despite that, I typically focus less on these issues than on the bigger, flashier environmental problems, so it was good to get a more thorough explanation of what exactly PFAS chemicals are and the regulatory challenges surrounding them. The stat that 99% of Americans have these “forever chemicals” in their bodies is deeply unsettling, especially considering their links to serious health conditions like cancer. Also, your point about individual action being insufficient resonated with me—no matter how careful we are personally, we can’t completely avoid these incredibly pervasive substances without systematic change. Compounding the issue are the EPA regulations you described, especially the withdrawal of federal limits under the current administration. Of course, environmental protections are vulnerable to political shifts, but it’s still somehow surprising that such a clear public health issue would become so partisan. I definitely appreciated your post for shedding light on the issue, though it left me wondering: what would be most effective in terms of policy beyond federal regulation? Could consumer pressure on manufacturers meaningfully shift the needle? Or maybe state-level action as a stopgap? I can only hope it will get more attention in the future.
Great job, Josh! I did not realize how prevalent PFAS was in our environment. I honestly thought they disappeared with DTD after the Silent Spring was released. Good to know! PFAS spread reminds me a lot of the prevalence of microplastics within our environment. PFAS inaction reminds me of the doubt think tanks create to deflect blame to the fossil fuel industry for climate change and skepticism about the reality of climate change. I wonder when the effects of PFAS will begin to be felt throughout the US population. I wonder if there are already effects seen throughout the population that are being hidden by the media, doubt, and lobbying. I wonder if these PFAS are similar to other toxins that disproportionately affect communities, especially communities near chemical and oil plants. I wonder how PFAS could be discovered so long ago and not see legislative action until last year. I also wonder how Lee Zeldin stated that PFAS are a top priority while he directed the EPA, but waited until the end of Biden’s four years to act. Any governmental employee would know that majority of time, a new presidential administration will reappoint appointees from the last presidential administration, especially if they are from different political parties.
One of the more powerful films I’ve watched was “Dark Waters” which acts out the 20 year long legal battle between DuPont and the struggling residents of Parkersburg, West Virginia. It was so sickening seeing the children with black teeth, cows with bloody eyes, and residents dying from cancer. What was most shocking was that DuPont began lab testing on PFAS in 1960, and discovered it caused enlarged livers in rats and rabbits. By 1980, pregnant DuPont employees had babies with abnormalities and lab tests found PFAS cause cancers in lab animals. Despite this overwhelming evidence, nobody believed the residents of Parkersburg, and it took lawyer Robert Bilott until 2017 to receive a settlement of $671 million. DuPont was aware of the health consequences, but PFAS production earned them $1 billion a year, so future legal action would still be less costly than the profits they are earning. I am linking a NRP podcast called “Can breaking the law be good for business?” It describes how corporations have no incentive to stop polluting harmful chemicals because they make so much money from it, and the legal fees and lost lives are just an afterthought. PFAS are just one example of this, and it is saddening to think that companies can get away with polluting, still profiting, and that our regulatory system does not have our back.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1197963517#:~:text=Wilbur%20made%20this%20video%20of,material%20for%20pots%20and%20pans.
Josh, this was definitely an eye-opening blog post! I have not heard about PFAS before, so I appreciate all of the information that you provided. I will definitely need to be more cautious about my use of plastics and with removing lint from the dryer. It is good to hear that government officials have at least thought about PFAS before. It is just sad that actions are currently being halted. I fear that, like you discussed and we have talked about in class, gridlock and our current economic climate are making it very difficult to pass environmental policy. The basis for decisions and policy action has clearly shifted from scientific evidence to economic analysis. Nowadays, it seems like everything has a dollar value associated with it.
Adding to what you talked about in the blog post, I am shocked by the extent to which these “forever chemicals” are found in our ecosystems and wildlife. An article by The Guardian states that these chemicals were found in “scorpions, pandas, Siberian tigers, turtles, horses, dogs, plankton, sea lions, wild boar, otters, and oysters.” [1] What a broad range of animals. In addition, there is no doubt that these chemicals would show up in livestock, such as cows, chickens, and pigs, because of their proximity to plastics and chemicals while being raised.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/22/animal-toxic-pfas-contamination-study
This was a really interesting read, Josh! Living in North Carolina and learning the history of the Chemours Plant and its impacts on the Haw River and Fayetteville area is what originally exposed me to how devastating and widespread this issue is. I think your blog post also did a really great job emphasizing just how difficult it is to take measures to avoid exposure from PFAS chemicals given they’re present in so many household items — I know personally I just prefer to try and avoid thinking about my personal exposure since it seems so beyond my control. It’s a shame that the Trump administration has halted progress on this issue. Defining drinking water standards and limiting all Americans’ exposure can only have a positive impact on public health. Something that gives me hope for the future is the magnitude of research being done on PFAS (including at Duke) in recent years. I think that the issue is making its way into the public sphere, and hopefully this will lead to more policy regulating PFAS at the federal level.
PFAS chemicals are certainly some of the more scary environmental obstacles that need to be overcome and it is surprising in some ways that legislation and mandates against them do not carry more bipartisan support given their extreme, adverse health effects. Personally, what makes actions like the EPA’s worrying is that it only established standards on “five of the most common individual chemicals”, when there are tens of thousands of variants What’s more, even if we begin to ban, tax or limit each PFAS chemical, industries can create more complex versions that don’t fall under this legislation and by nature are then more toxic and longer lasting. Even if we can’t eliminate PFAS from our environment, it would useful if there was legislation that mandated that a product state whether it contains PFAS, and at least consumers could know what everyday items are toxic to them and use alternatives and take more autonomy over the problem.
Hi! This was super interesting to read, as the issue of PFAS is complex. I think it’s hard to address because, as mentioned, PFAS are forever chemicals and we have already all been exposed on some level. It’s disheartening but not surprising to read that Trump has halted efforts to restrict PFAS even though their toxic status has already been established. I’m curious to see how the issue of PFAS will play out long-term. Since these chemicals do not degrade, they could continue to accumulate in people generation after generation. I wonder at what point this accumulation of chemicals will be too great in the human body or generally for society to handle. This blog post reiterated the importance of immediate PFAS regulations to lessen the long-term damage posed.
Josh, this is an incredibly thought-provoking blog on PFAS chemicals. The inescapability of these chemicals is, to put it plainly, a little bit frightening, as you have laid out in this post. With any luck, an optimist’s view on Zeldin’s EPA and the Trump administration would say that these holds are temporary and reform is coming. In the event that it’s not, one would hope that there are proper NGOs and advocacy groups out there that will educate the community on the dangers of such chemicals and how to avoid them, if they so wish. Zeldin’s prior history of legislating on PFAS makes me hold out hope that continued regulation will come, especially after reading about the public health dangers that these chemicals pose. The generational accumulation of such chemicals cannot be underestimated, and continued research on the topic will be a necessary cornerstone of any future legislation. Great work.