By Rory Reedy-Solano | US Environmental Policy Student

Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have recently come under intense criticism from scientists, policymakers, and the public alike, due to concerns around their environmental persistence and impact on human health. PFAS are more commonly called “forever chemicals” because they break down slowly and can accumulate in the body over time if repeatedly exposed.^[1] These man-made substances have been used in non-stick cookware, fire and water-resistant fabrics, and food packaging for decades. Their resistant nature has led to PFAS being discovered in all aspects of our environment: from the bloodstream of humans and animals to our food and water supply. ^[2] The flurry of scientific literature around the negative health effects of PFAS exposure has concerned citizens and forced policymakers to take swift action. Continued advocacy is essential to promote stronger local and federal regulation on PFAS testing of food and water supplies, accountability for waste discharge, and expanded educational initiatives for high-risk individuals and communities to ensure all Americans are protected.

In 2022, More than 200 PFAS bills were introduced in state legislatures, with nearly fifty new laws adopted in eighteen states, either banning or heavily regulating PFAS. For example, Maine banned PFAS use for all but essential use by 2030 and requires all manufacturers selling PFAS-contaminated products to report usage to their statewide database.^[3] The states were behind the first wave of PFAS policy, but now, regulatory review is being taken on by the EPA. For the most part, PFAS have been phased out in U.S. manufacturing.^[4] However, the problem persists with imported products, older products, and legacy contamination from firefighting foam.^[5] With the plethora of research articles detailing the risks of PFAS and magazine op-eds telling you to throw away everything in your house, it can be difficult to truly understand the threat of PFAS and what to take seriously.

PFAS exposure can cause serious health effects, from fertility issues and increased risk of certain cancers to changes in fetal and child development. However, since we know that most of the population is exposed in some capacity, and these health conditions are relatively rare, we have reason to conclude that PFAS aren’t a direct threat to most Americans. The amount of exposure and personal health predispositions are the most important factors in deciphering the relative risk of associated health outcomes. ^[6]

The Biden-Harris Administration took on a strict action plan to tackle the prevalence of these forever chemicals. Their PFAS Strategic Road Map coined the phrase “Research, Restrict, Remediate”. ^[7] The administration worked closely with the EPA to accelerate PFAS policy initiatives, with the most recent actions including the first-ever National Drinking Water Standard for PFAS.^[8] They have also developed more comprehensive criteria and guidance tools on the proper disposal of PFAS contaminants.^[9]  The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act allocated approximately $2 billion to cleanups for emerging contaminants, like PFAS, in water supplies.^[10] The collaborative and bold efforts of this administration significantly helped clean up communities and increase conversations around the dangers of PFAS, specifically on a national level.

Despite these clear efforts to better regulate PFAS, there is an unequal burden of PFAS pollution. Research has shown that Black and Latino communities have a higher likelihood of having concerning levels of PFAS in their water supply compared to other communities.^[11] Under the Trump-Vance administration, we’ve seen significant pushback on environmental justice initiatives. For example, the dismantling of the EJSCREEN tool, designed to identify high-risk, marginalized communities by combining environmental and demographic indicators into EJ indexes, has left communities with many questions and concerns. ^[12] National tools like this are useful for policymakers and improve public transparency and knowledge around their exposure status. It is unknown how President Trump will directly deal with PFAS regulatory policy. Major trade associations have filed a suit against the National Primary Drinking Water Rule, challenging the validity of data surrounding Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for six common PFAS found in manufactured products. Complying with MCLs poses high costs to manufacturers. The head of the EPA, Lee Zeldin, along with President Trump, will most likely side with manufacturers, weakening the regulatory powers of the EPA. ^[13] For these reasons, state legislations have been more successful at implementing local-level preventative strategies, while the federal government is better at setting broad standards that can be accepted, or possibly challenged, by citizens. ^[14]

Historically, there have been gaps between communicating scientific research to impacted communities. Specifically, with PFAS research, there is inadequate communication with the public around exposure status and what precautionary measures should be taken. The medical community has taken the largest strides to better inform the public on PFAS exposure and health outcomes.  The National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has taken it upon itself to hold open meetings where community members are encouraged to share their health experiences. In addition, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry promotes patient-clinician communication through informative graphics or brochures.^[15] However, the language around exposure is vague and does not quantify risk properly. These efforts among medical professionals are a step, but keeping conversations around PFAS exposure casual does neither the patient nor the healthcare provider any good.

There are considerable successes in our current state of measuring, regulating, and educating communities on PFAS exposure, but more needs to be done. Environmental Justice is more than Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, and the health of Americans depends on the prioritization of Environmental Justice and health initiatives. Opening up dialogue around the community’s concerns is important, but that responsibility shouldn’t solely rely on healthcare providers. To truly understand the concerns of the community, research institutions and policymakers, should utilize local resources, like town halls or grassroot organizations. National efforts may be difficult under our current administration, but local authority and the power of research should not be overlooked. Prioritizing the health of each community, especially those at the highest risk, is the best way to fix the problem we’ve created. Soon enough, with community outreach and proper policy initiatives, we will be saying goodbye to“forever”.

---

^[1] “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).” National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc.

^[2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS Explained. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 3 Oct. 2024, www.epa.gov/pfas/pfas-explained.

^[3] Kraft, Michael, E. et al. Environmental Policy. Available from: VitalSource Bookshelf, (12th Edition). SAGE Publications, Inc. (US), 2023.

^[4] “FDA, Industry Actions End Sales of PFAS Used in U.S. Food Packaging.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 28 Feb. 2024, www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-industry-actions-end-sales-pfas-used-us-food-packaging.

^[5] Brind’Amour, Molly. “Issue Brief: The State of PFAS (‘Forever Chemicals’) in America (2024).” Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 6 Sep. 2024, www.eesi.org/papers/view/issue-brief-the-state-of-pfas-forever-chemicals-in-america-2024.

^[6] U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. “PFAS – Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.” VA Public Health, 6 Oct. 2024, https://publichealth.va.gov/exposures/pfas.asp. Accessed 21 Apr. 2025.

^[7] Brind’Amour, Issue Brief: The State of PFAS.

^[8] United States Environmental Protection Agency. Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), 5 Mar. 2024, www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas.

^[9]U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Key EPA Actions to Address PFAS.” EPA, 2024, www.epa.gov/pfas/key-epa-actions-address-pfas.

^[10]  Brind’Amour, Issue Brief: The State of PFAS.

^[11] Brind’Amour, Issue Brief: The State of PFAS.

^[12] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “What is EJSCREEN?” EJSCREEN: Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, 19 Jan. 2021, https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/ejscreen/what-ejscreen_.html.

^[13] Hembree, Meaghan Colligan, et al. “The PFAS Drinking Water Rule under the Second Trump Administration: What Happens Next?” Holland & Knight, 17 Apr. 2025, https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2025/04/the-pfas-drinking-water-rule-under-the-second-trump.

^[14] Kraft et al., Environmental Policy.

^[15] ​“Exposure to Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Associations with Serum Lipids in a Middle-Aged Danish Population.” Environmental Health, vol. 21, no. 1, 2022, https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-022-00857-9.