View this post on the web at [link removed]
For decades, they’ve been lurking in your kitchen, your closet, your carpets—everywhere, really. These invisible, indestructible chemicals have been sold as a convenience of modern life—but they’re making us sick. U.S. regulatory agencies didn’t just give these chemical companies the green light—they turned a blind eye to mounting evidence of harm for decades. Now, Texas is drawing a line in the sand.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton on Dec. 11 filed a sweeping lawsuit [ [link removed] ] against chemical industry giants 3M and DuPont, accusing them of knowingly misleading the public about the dangers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS or "forever chemicals." These substances have earned their ominous nickname because they do not break down in the environment. Instead, they persist for decades and accumulate in the human body.
PFAS are a class of thousands of synthetic chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in a variety of consumer and industrial products. They are prized for their water- and stain-resistant properties, which make them a key ingredient in nonstick cookware like Teflon, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, waterproof clothing, firefighting foams, cosmetics, and even fast-food wrappers. Despite their widespread use, PFAS have been linked to severe health problems, including cancer, thyroid disease, immune system suppression, and developmental delays in children.
The Texas lawsuit accuses 3M and DuPont of violating the state’s deceptive trade practices law by concealing the harmful effects of PFAS from the public while marketing products containing these chemicals as safe for household use. According to the complaint, these companies were aware for decades of the risks associated with PFAS exposure but deliberately hid this information to protect their bottom lines.
“Defendants marketed products containing harmful PFAS chemicals for over 70 years and were aware of the harmful effects of PFAS chemicals for over 50 years. Despite this knowledge, Defendants continued to market PFAS products and chemicals in Texas and elsewhere as safe for consumer use, misrepresent their environmental and biological risks, and conceal risks of harm from the public,” Paxton said in a press release [ [link removed] ].
The lawsuit further alleges that 3M and DuPont created sophisticated public relations campaigns to mislead regulators and the public about the safety of their products. Internal documents cited in the complaint reportedly show that both companies were aware as early as the 1950s that PFAS chemicals posed significant health risks, including liver damage, reproductive harm, and cancer. Despite mounting evidence, they continued to suppress studies and manipulate research findings to downplay these risks.
This is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
One particularly striking claim in the lawsuit is that DuPont allegedly discharged massive quantities of PFAS into public waterways and soil, knowing full well that these chemicals could not be contained or effectively removed. Similarly, 3M is accused of dumping PFAS waste into landfills and rivers, contaminating drinking water supplies and ecosystems across the state.
In the name of full disclosure, corporations like 3M and DuPont weren’t the only ones responsible for unleashing PFAS into the environment. Regulatory agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)—agencies that are supposed to keep Americans safe—also played a role. When PFAS were introduced in the 1940s, there was no regulatory framework requiring rigorous safety testing. Later, when laws like the Toxic Substances Control Act were passed in the 1970s, PFAS were grandfathered in without proper oversight.
The FDA approved certain PFAS compounds for use in food packaging, fast-food wrappers, and cookware, relying on safety studies provided by the manufacturers themselves, just as they do with vaccines.
Meanwhile, the EPA allowed PFAS to be used in industrial processes and firefighting foams despite early evidence of their persistence in the environment and potential toxicity. The military and airports relied heavily on PFAS-based foams, contaminating water supplies near their facilities. These agencies failed to act decisively even as independent studies began to link PFAS exposure to cancer, liver damage, and developmental delays.
To understand the gravity of the case, it’s important to grasp what makes PFAS so problematic. Unlike many other chemicals, PFAS are virtually indestructible. Their molecular structure is composed of extremely strong carbon-fluorine bonds, which make them resistant to heat, water, and oil. While this durability makes them highly useful in manufacturing, it also means they persist in the environment and in the human body indefinitely. Over time, PFAS accumulate in blood, kidneys, and other organs, potentially leading to significant health consequences.
The lawsuit names specific products, such as Teflon, Stainmaster, and Scotchgard, which have been staples in American households for decades. For instance, Teflon-coated pans offer the convenience of nonstick cooking, while Scotchgard-treated fabrics help prevent stains on furniture and clothing. But according to the lawsuit, consumers were not informed about the hidden risks these products posed to their health and safety.
Texas’ legal action places it among more than 30 states pursuing accountability from PFAS manufacturers, but PFAS have been detected in drinking water supplies, soil, and even in the bloodstreams of people and animals worldwide.
According to the complaint, cleaning up PFAS contamination in public water systems, agricultural land, and urban environments has already cost millions of dollars in Texas alone, with no end in sight. Paxton argues that companies like 3M and DuPont should be responsible for these cleanup efforts—not taxpayers.
In July 2023, a coalition of 22 state attorneys general opposed a proposed $10.3 billion settlement from 3M to address public drinking water contamination, arguing that the amount fell far short of what was needed to address the widespread damage.
The Texas lawsuit underscores the broader reckoning chemical manufacturers face over the environmental and health damage caused by PFAS. If successful, the lawsuit could result in substantial financial penalties for the companies involved and potentially set a new precedent for how manufacturers disclose risks to consumers. It could also provide funding for cleanup efforts and medical monitoring for communities affected by PFAS exposure.
How to Reduce Your Exposure to Forever Chemicals
For those who are just “coming into the know” on PFAS, here’s a list of 10 steps you can take to reduce your exposure to PFAS:
1. Filter Your Drinking Water
Use a high-quality water filter that targets PFAS, such as reverse osmosis systems or activated carbon filters certified to remove these chemicals. Avoid drinking unfiltered tap water in areas with known contamination. If you can’t afford a system, look to see if there is a store in your area that sells water—and in PFAS-free containers. (For years, I purchased drinking water from a “Water One” store.) ...
Unsubscribe [link removed]?
