Federal Authorities Accused of Rolling Back Rules on ‘Forever Chemicals’

The federal government is facing criticism from environmentalists who say Ottawa is backtracking on plans to protect the public from “forever chemicals.”

Critics say that instead of taking precautions, the government is allowing the industry to delay regulation.

“The burden is always on us to prove that these substances are harmful,” says Cassie Barker, senior program manager for toxics at the environmental advocacy group Environmental Defense.

But the government says it is trying to avoid a court overturning regulations on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as PFAS.

PFAS is a class of thousands of chemicals used in cosmetics, clothing, food packaging, firefighting foams and more. Because they don’t break down in nature, they can bioaccumulate in animals and humans and cause health problems like cancer, endocrine disruption and thyroid disease.

Manufacturers of these chemicals have known about their potential harm for decades but have been slow to act — leading to a flurry of lawsuits in the U.S. and, most recently, in British Columbia. Now, critics say the chemical industry is using the same delaying tactics to fight federal regulation.

On Monday, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada released a draft report on PFAS. The report informs policymakers developing regulations to limit hazardous chemicals and suggests that PFAS are or could be released into the environment in harmful amounts. But the federal government says a subset of PFAS, called fluoropolymers, should be studied separately because there is evidence that fluoropolymers have “different exposure and hazard profiles than other PFAS.”

That’s a major concern for environmentalists and health experts, who say the separate study for fluoropolymers is a rollback of a proposal last year to designate the entire class of PFAS as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Some critics say a separate study for fluoropolymers further delays the regulatory process.

Barker said National Observer of Canada that time is of the essence and “unfortunately we do not have a timeline for the proposed alternative evaluation of fluoropolymers.” She said that despite scientists’ best efforts, the Canadian government cannot effectively test every chemical in a reasonable time frame.

“We cannot allow industry to claim that the absence of evidence of harm is evidence of safety,” she said.

Barker said the reason scientists are urging regulators to treat PFAS as a class, rather than studying and regulating each chemical separately, is to avoid playing “toxin whack-a-mole,” where one chemical is regulated and another, equally problematic, similar chemical is used in its place. Because the path from research to regulation of a chemical can take years, it’s better to regulate PFAS in one go, she said.

Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault said National Observer of Canada Government takes ‘unprecedented’ action on chemicals that have never been available before, but to withstand legal challenges, regulatory decisions must be consistent with science.

“If we want good, effective environmental policy that supports the best science and withstands future legal challenges, we need to make sure we get it right today and get it done without delay,” he said. “The update reflects the best available science on PFAS and was done in a transparent way, allowing Canadians to participate in the process.

“We are not wasting any time in considering this application,” he said.

Stakeholders and other parties have until September 11 to submit their views on the draft report.

Jennifer Beeman of Breast Cancer Action Quebec said in a statement that the PFAS regulations have been in place for three years “and will continue to drag on due to repeated rounds of consultations and delaying tactics used by industry lobbyists.”

“The federal government must counter industry’s false claims, maintain the current PFAS class definition and protect the regulatory process from industry interference,” she said.

“Environmental protection should be based on precautions, not on powerful lobbying groups that want to continue to pollute while we all pay the price.”

The upcoming regulations in Ottawa come after British Columbia became the first province in June to sue chemical companies such as 3M and DuPont de Nemours over perpetual chemicals.