Front Burner - Forever chemicals are in Canadians’ air, water and blood

Episode Date: July 19, 2023

Forever Chemicals, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have been around since the 1940s and are used in everything from non-stick pans to take-out containers to cosmetics and fire retardant. But flash-forward to today and the long-lasting, man-made substances have been found inside Canadian blood samples – brought in through the air and dust we breathe, and even in our drinking water. And now the federal government is proposing to list them as toxic. Today on Front Burner, we’re asking why forever chemicals are seemingly everywhere, what can be done about them, and why it’s taken so long for the government to act. Joining us is Miriam Diamond, a professor at the University of Toronto’s Department of Earth Sciences and School of the Environment. For transcripts of this series, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization, empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. This is a CBC Podcast. Hi, I'm Tamara Kandaker. It's basically what they call forever chemicals. They're long-chain fluorocarbons designed to withstand any kind of breakdown. That's actor and activist Mark Ruffalo talking about PFAS chemicals, also known as forever chemicals. They've been around since the 1940s and used in everything

from nonstick pans to takeout containers to cosmetics and fire retardant. But flash forward to today and the long-lasting man-made chemicals have been found inside Canadian blood samples, brought in through the air and dust we breathe, and even in our drinking water. New study has found that almost all of Quebec's drinking water contains PFAS. Nearly half the tap water in the U.S. is contaminated with harmful chemicals that are not easily detected and even harder to get rid of. And now the federal government is proposing to list them as toxic. The federal government is investigating so-called forever chemicals in Canada. A growing body of evidence

points to toxic chemicals on our clothes, making their way into our bodies. Today, we're asking why forever chemicals are seemingly everywhere, what can be done about them, and why it's taken so long for the government to act. Miriam Diamond is a professor at the University of Toronto's Department of Earth Sciences and School of the Environment, and she joins me now. joins me now. Hi, Miriam. Hi, Tamara. Hi, it's nice to talk to you. So let's start with the basics here. In the simplest possible terms, what are forever chemicals? A very large group of chemicals, and all of them are extremely persistent.

What do you mean by extremely persistent? What does that mean? They last for decades, if not hundreds of years. We just don't know. What's really perverse about PFAS is not only that they last forever, but they last in water. So other chemicals can tend to be buried in deep in sediments or in soils. But PFAS follows the water so that they stick around in surface waters like lake water and ocean water. That's why we're so concerned about PFAS in drinking water. These so-called forever chemicals are widely used in manufacturing and are most commonly found in water sources near urban areas. The study found contamination in both private and public water supplies, with the worst

contamination found in the Great Plains, the Great Lakes, the eastern seaboard, and central and southern California. And so what kinds of properties are PFAS known for? PFAS are excellent at repelling water and grease stains. They're great as a surfactant. That means that they help something to spread really easily like a paint. They have great thermal stability. That means that you can really heat them up to high temperatures and they'll be stable. So that's why they're used in so many different applications. Right. And this sounds like it would be really useful. So where would I come into contact with a forever chemical in my everyday life?

So many places. From dental floss to guitar strings, eyeglass cleaners, Gore-Tex rain jackets, car waxes, popcorn bags, especially microwave popcorn bags, climbing ropes, artificial turf, some paper-based food containers, bike lubricants, stain-resistant clothing, like kids' uniforms. And do you know what another one is? Oh my God, menstrual panties. Oh, really?

And even eyeglass coatings. That's just a small list of where it's found. Wow. eyeglass coatings. That's just a small list of where it's found. But importantly, it's found in aqueous firefighting foams that are used to fight grease and fuel fires. So really anything and everything. What about in nature? Are there places in the environment that we'd find forever chemicals? No, we find them all over because we put them there, but they're not naturally occurring. Right. Okay. So a new study from the United States Geological Survey estimates that forever chemicals are in nearly half of US tap water. And I was wondering, do we know much about the

levels of forever chemicals in Canada's water? We know some, but not enough. A study was just published by colleagues in Quebec, actually at Université de Montréal. They found that in Quebec drinking water, that 99% of tap water samples had some PFAS in it. Oh, wow. Maximum levels exceeded the recently proposed U.S. PFAS drinking water standards. Surface waters that have been tested in Canada, for example, those in the greater Toronto area, also show PFAS. Okay, so this doesn't sound great. We now know that forever chemicals are in nearly half of U.S. tap water and some Canadian water. According to a recent report from the Canadian government, they're being found in the blood of Canadians. That report also said that humans are exposed through the air and dust. And Miriam, why are we finding out about all of

this now? Have these chemicals become more ubiquitous recently? Yes. And can I just emphasize that the Canadian Health Measures Survey found that 99% of Canadians have three types of PFAS in our bodies. So virtually every Canadian has PFAS. You're born with it, you get it as an infant, and you keep being exposed throughout your lifespan. So why are we finding out more about PFAS now? Well, there are several reasons. First of all, testing has been difficult. It's expensive, but more scientists are able to test, more agencies have capacity to test. And as testing proceeds, we find PFAS all over the place. Number two, we're finding more evidence of adverse health effects. So toxicological studies are being conducted, which raise alarm bells.

The third reason is that we've got more incidences of people being highly exposed to PFAS, really egregious levels of PFAS exposure. For example, the movie Dark Waters was about widespread PFAS contamination in Parkersburg, West Virginia, surrounding the DuPont plant that produced PFAS. It contaminated workers and the surrounding community. You need to tell me what in the hell is going on. DuPont is knowingly poisoning 70,000 local residents for the last four years. The one starring Mark Ruffalo. Correct. The same thing is being played out now in Cape Fear in North Carolina.

Residents near a chemical plant on the Cape Fear River have been dealing with the discovery of an unregulated chemical known as Gen X. The state's case against the companies DuPont and Chemours would hold them accountable for PFAS. It claims they introduced into the state's case against the companies DuPont and Chemours would hold them accountable for PFAS. It claims they introduced into the states drinking water. Today's decision denies a motion from the companies to have this case dismissed. The same thing is being played out in, it's an estimated 17,000 potentially PFAS contaminated sites in Europe. potentially PFAS contaminated sites in Europe. So there are more instances of widespread worker and community exposure with some studies showing attendant adverse health effects.

So that's why it's coming more to the fore. Now, it was really interesting. Times just came out with an article saying that court and out-of-court settlements in the US for PFAS-related injury may eclipse that of big tobacco. Oh, wow. Yeah. That is really big news. So for example, in June 2023, DuPont, Chemours and Cortiva just reached a $1.185 billion settlement with 300 local water systems. And then 3M just settled for $10.3 billion U.S. dollars with 300 water providers. A Minnesota company has agreed to pay one of the largest settlements ever in U.S. history. The money will be used over the span of 13 years to treat contamination from per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and help efforts to filter it from drinking water served

to the public. There is a big court case going on in California. Stay tuned. There was this study from the University of California recently based on some documents that came from a class action lawsuit that found the makers of PFAS chemicals actually knew about the risks as far back as the 1970s and big companies like DuPont and 3M knowingly covered up the dangers. How did they get away with it for so long? That is such a good question. And you know what makes this question even more upsetting? It's not just PFAS, but it's other chemicals as well. Same playbook. It is so incredibly frustrating and there should be no excuse, but this keeps happening. So there are several reasons. First, the government simply does not have the ability to review all the chemicals that come onto the

marketplace. There just isn't adequate capacity for oversight. The second major reason is that very effective lobbying has been conducted by chemical producers to either prevent or delay restrictions or to water down chemical management measures. In the US, we've seen chemical producers tie up litigation cases in the courts. But ultimately, it's because our system works on the basis of a chemical is safe until it's proven to be not safe or guilty. So safety is presumed. The burden of proof required to show that a chemical is not safe is enormous. The burden of proof is so skewed towards embracing new chemicals and not restricting chemicals for which we have evidence of harm. And I say this with a lot of frustration because I'm one of those people that tries to produce that evidence and we keep

being told you need more evidence. You mentioned lobbying by these companies and I read that it was compared to the tactics that the tobacco industry used at one point. Yeah, that is so interesting. So big tobacco, climate change, acid rain, and now PFAS and other chemicals, the same industry playbook has been used. It's astonishing. And this has been documented in several studies that it's the same playbook. So the playbook includes commenting that the evidence is insufficient, suggesting that the evidence is uncertain, we just don't know enough, even attacking individual scientists for the work that we do by saying that our work isn't sufficiently robust. Interesting. And before we move on, I should just add in an email statement to CBC News, 3M said the company has previously addressed many of the mischaracterizations of these documents in previous reporting. That's a quote. 3M didn't include any specific responses to the study,

but in a statement to CNBC, the company said it plans to end production of the chemicals by 2025. And DuPont says the company's use of PFAS is limited, with systems in place to ensure PFAS is used safely and controlled to the highest standards. In the Dragon's Den, a simple pitch can lead to a life-changing connection. Watch new episodes of Dragon's Den free on CBC Gem. Brought to you in part by National Angel Capital Organization. Empowering Canada's entrepreneurs through angel investment and industry connections. Hi, it's Ramit Sethi here. You may have seen my money show on Netflix. I've been talking about money for 20 years. I've talked to millions of people and I have some startling numbers to share

with you. Did you know that of the people I speak to, 50% of them do not know their own household income. That's not a typo. 50%. That's because money is confusing. In my new book and podcast, Money for Couples, I help you and your partner create a financial vision together. To listen to this podcast, just search for Money for Couples. So now we've talked about what forever chemicals are and how prevalent they are. They're really everywhere and they can be found in household items at industrial sites and they can be really useful. But what do we know about the health risks associated with forever chemicals? There are so many different forever chemicals. There are right now

about 12,000. We know about the toxicity of maybe a dozen, but we do have in-depth understanding of the toxicity of those PFAS that have been used for a long time. What the studies show is that PFAS can cause a wide range of health effects, decreased fertility, pregnancy-induced hypertension, developmental effects or delays in children, such as lower birth weight. PFAS is also linked to accelerated puberty and behavior changes, also reduced immune function. So if you have reduced immune function, that means you're less able to fend off infections and it can reduce vaccine response. I actually just read the story about a young woman named Amara Strand who died of cancer in April in Minnesota. And she died while she was fighting for legislation

against forever chemicals. Now there's a law in that state banning the use of PFAS. Can you tell me a bit about the risks of cancer associated with PFAS? Yes. Exposure to PFAS has been related to thyroid cancer, testicular cancer, prostate, and kidney cancer. Wow. And so the thing that I found interesting about that story that I read is that she lived in a town where the economy was driven by 3M, which is known for manufacturing products with PFAS in them. And she went to this high school where five kids died of cancer in the span of 10 years. But based on that story,

it hasn't actually been proven that PFAS caused the cancer. But the communities where 3M was dumping these chemicals did see heightened risks of it. So I'm just wondering how definitive the science is around this at this point. The science is clear that PFAS causes certain cancers. However, it is very difficult to establish that PFAS caused a cancer in a particular person. So yes, at a population scale, the evidence is sound about the carcinogenicity of PFAS, but it's very difficult to prove that for an individual. That makes it extremely frustrating for those individuals who have been deeply affected within their communities. been studied for their health effects. Does that mean that the health effects are potentially much worse and we just don't know the extent of all the things that these chemicals could cause? Yes, it's really a moving target. I say that because as some PFAS have been withdrawn from the market, others have moved to replace them. It's just not possible to keep up with the new PFAS and not so new,

actually, PFAS that have been introduced into the marketplace to figure out all the adverse health effects. So that's why treating PFAS as an entire class is really an important move forward. Right. Who is being hurt the most by these kinds of chemicals? Are there certain populations that are more exposed? Yes, people living nearby facilities that produce PFAS or that use PFAS in their manufacturing. But we also know that occupations can be highly exposed. Firefighters are highly exposed because they use aqueous firefighting foams that contain PFAS, and they also have PFAS in their turnout gear. Textile workers that are working with clothing that is water and or stain resistant. Workers in outdoor stores that contain

lots of Gore-Tex products, even painters, indoor painters, because we know that PFAS is used in many indoor paints. Wow, so many different kinds of workers. I also saw this report from the government of Canada that said higher levels of PFAS are being found in northern indigenous communities. Yes, that's correct. And that's because PFAS, because it's so persistent, moves through the water. Some of the PFAS can accumulate in foods, in country foods, for example, seals, whales, PFAS in fish, so that Indigenous communities can be exposed to their diet. And the other kind of alarming thing that I read was that even infants can be exposed to these chemicals through breast milk and placenta, which I think really illustrates that they're really

everywhere and kind of everyone's at risk. Yes, and that's why we have to take really strong measures to reduce exposure in moms. So in May, the federal government announced plans to address this issue. Essentially, both Health Canada and Environment Canada have proposed listing these chemicals as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. Why is that a big deal? What would that do? This is such a big deal. And I'm really supportive of this proposal. That is PFAS as a class, as a very large class of chemicals be designated as toxic. What that does is allows the government to implement restrictions on the whole class of PFAS. If it weren't treated as a

class, then we have the situation where industry substitutes a slightly different version of the banned chemical, and then we play whack-a-mole, and then we play whack-a-mole, and then we play whack-a-mole again and again. So basically by listing these chemicals as toxic, the government is acknowledging their potential for harm, and that could lead to more regulation. Yes, and I hope it comes quickly. So Canadians have until mid-July to weigh in on this proposed change. And Miriam, you're the lead scientist of a group of independent academics who've signed a letter in response to the government and it

hasn't been made public yet. But what's the big message that you're trying to send? The big message is, yes, we support the designation of PFAS as a class, support the designation of PFAS as a class, as toxic to both humans and the environment. Next, we encourage the government to quickly pass legislation, binding legislation, not voluntary measures, but binding legislation to sunset the uses of PFAS in applications that the timetable can vary according to those applications that aren't essential, like cosmetics, for example, and take a longer timeline for other applications for which alternatives are not yet available. So we've talked about all of the potential dangers of forever chemicals, how they're so hard to contain, and the fact that

they're in our water, in our food, in our blood, they can even be passed down to fetuses. So why are we still using them? That is a great question. Because they're being produced, they are so effective in a wide number of applications. I mean, we talked about, you know, there's a huge laundry list of applications. And because there aren't enough jurisdictions that are passing restrictive legislation to remove PFAS from those applications.

When jurisdictions pass legislation, it prompts the industry to come up with alternatives, and that's the way we should be moving forward. and emissions reduction. And the association also said its members will follow the science, but that it cautions against banning forever chemicals that are essential and for which there are no alternatives. How do you respond to that point of view? My response is that we can't have a suite of chemicals that are highly persistent and that cause adverse effects or could cause adverse effects, and that we keep them in the marketplace because they have other beneficial uses. It's just not good enough. And there will be alternatives. I'm quite confident that industry has the ability to

innovate to find alternatives. The legislation can include provisions to maintain essential uses, such as medical implants, or I believe it's going to take a while to find alternatives in chip manufacturing, for example. But that's okay. We can have a timeline for sun setting. And in the meantime, it is going to prompt industry to come up with alternatives. Already industry has come up with alternatives for rain jackets and other water repellency for other stain repellency applications, alternatives in food packaging. So there are alternatives that are available. So Miriam, before we say goodbye, everything you've told me today is alarming. The fact that these chemicals take forever to break down, they can be harmful to

humans, but they're everywhere. So is there any way to clean up what's already out there? Another great question. And this answer is sad. So there are proven technologies, but they are super expensive because they use very high temperatures and pressures to break that really strong carbon fluorine bond. And they also produce toxic byproducts. I mean, that's inevitable. So are there cleanup methods? Yeah. Are they economical? No. There are other cleanup methods which produce smaller molecules of PFAS. So they don't, they're not ultimately effective. I mean, this is a case where we don't have economically viable cleanup technologies. And yet we keep using these chemicals.

How frustrating is that? Okay, Miriam, thank you so much. Oh, this has been a blast. Thank you very, very much. All right, that's all for today. I'm Tamara Kandaker. Thank you so much for listening, and I will talk to you tomorrow. For more CBC Podcasts, go to cbc.ca slash podcasts.