Ever wonder how your mascara or lipstick stays on all day? It might be that it contains PFAS, a class of chemicals used to make products water- and oil-resistant that are likewise establish on Teflon nonstick pans and Gore-Tex waterproof clothing. Unfortunately, PFAS are linked to cancer and other serious health problems.

This week, the Biden administration announced new laws designed to protect Americans from these toxic chemicals. By the end of 2021, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) volition crave manufacturers of PFAS to examination and publicly written report the quantity of some PFAS chemicals found in everyday items, including makeup, food packaging, nonstick pans, and stain-resistant furniture. But some researchers and environmental activists say this won't fix the problem, and it's time for the government to ban the use of these harmful chemicals outright.

What are PFAS?

PFAS—or perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl compounds—refer to more than 4,000 chemicals plant in a wide range of consumer products considering they can increment resistance to heat, stains, water, and grease. These chemicals practice not break downwards in the environment, and human exposure to them has been found to cause cancers, weaken immunity, and atomic number 82 to other negative wellness outcomes. In the midst of the current pandemic, the Centers for Disease Command and Prevention (CDC) has said at that place is evidence from human and brute studies that PFAS exposure may reduce antibiotic responses to vaccines, which could mean that information technology might decrease the effectiveness of COVID-nineteen vaccines, though more than studies demand to be done.

PFAS are often called "forever chemicals" because they stay put in the environment. "In one case they're fabricated, nothing tin break them downwards," says David Bond, a professor at Bennington Higher who studies PFAS. "Once they're released, they motility around through the air, water, and soil. They accrue in plants, animals, and humans, sticking effectually for seven years, throwing our well-nigh essential bodily systems into disarray, even at tremendously low levels of exposure."

The regulation problem

EPA regulation is a step in the correct direction, says Bond, and it follows similar regulation in the Eu, where in 2019 some PFAS chemicals were restricted in products fabricated or imported into the region. This twelvemonth, the governments of Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Norway announced that by July 2022, they volition formally propose a more stringent ban on production, marketing, and apply of this entire class of chemicals throughout Europe.

But the EPA regulation doesn't get in plenty, Bail says. "The EPA development this week is long overdue, only it is not plenty," he says. "This is a programme to keep studying the problem in the hopes that we can eventually do something most it. But we know exactly how bad, extensive, and urgent the crisis of PFAS contamination is. We don't need to study it; we need to get-go doing something virtually it."

Chemic manufacturers have lobbied confronting government regulation of PFAS, arguing that not all of these thousands of chemicals are equally bad and therefore, they should be analyzed 1 at a time. "These chemic companies are running major lobbying campaigns," says Erik Olson, senior strategic director for health and food at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "One of their main arguments is that you have to regulate each private chemical, which would take a geologic time scale to accomplish. It's basically a tactic to delay regulation."

Some chemical companies also  argue that since these toxic chemicals are ubiquitous, it volition exist impossible to supercede them across then many product categories. "PFAS are used past a wide range of companies and industries worldwide for their unique operation properties," says Sean Lynch, communications manager at 3M. "For example, PFAS make innovations like life-saving medical devices and low-emission vehicles possible."

David Andrews, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Grouping (EWG), an organization devoted to ridding the environment of toxic chemicals, points out that the new rule only forces chemic manufacturers—like 3M, Dupont, and Chemours—to disembalm how much PFAS are in their products. This law does not concur individual brands or product makers responsible for disclosing this information. For example, an individual mascara brand will not be legally required to say how many PFAS are in their production. "The regulatory threat is relatively depression on consumer product companies in terms of forcing them to test or reformulate their products," he says.

A night history

PFAS chemicals have been around since the 1940s. Today, they are largely made by corporations like 3M, Dupont, and Chemours, which have applied them to an array of consumer goods. The EWG has published internal memos and documents from 3M and DuPont, revealing that these companies researched the risks of PFAS and found they were toxic to humans, simply kept these studies hush-hush for decades from employees and the public.

"The companies that manufacture PFAS chemicals knew they were toxic almost from they moment they started producing them," says Bond. "They amassed extensive documentation of their deadly effects on their own workers and on nearby communities since the 1960s, but buried this information abroad while integrating these chemicals into a boundless array of consumer products." For instance, as early every bit 1950, 3M knew that PFAS built up in the claret of mice, and in 1963, its internal technical manual deemed PFAS toxic. In 1989, 3M found elevated cancer rates among its PFAS workers, and in 1992, Dupont constitute the same thing.

3M spokesperson Lynch says that the company is now offering more transparency into its internal documents. "To augment the global cognition on PFAS, 3M has placed thousands of documents in the public domain, including more than 150 published studies conducted by 3M and other researchers on potential environmental and wellness effects of PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA," he says.

Chemours did non immediately respond to our request for comment. A spokesperson for Dupont referred us to the American Chemistry Council for comment.

Everywhere chemicals

Scientists accept found that PFAS are all around us. They are found in high concentrations in public drinking h2o in 33 states. They are widely used in cream-based products used in military machine installations and past civilian firefighters to extinguish fires. In recent months, researchers have identified them in fifty-fifty more than consumer products. Last yr, scientists from the University of Notre Dame found PFAS in the crotch of Thinx menstrual underwear, resulting in a form activeness lawsuit accusing the brand of endangering customers, which is still underway. (Thinx denies the allegations.) And this year, some of those aforementioned scientists published a study of PFAS in makeup. They tested 231 frequently used corrective products and found that 52% had high fluorine, the dangerous chemical in PFAS.  Information technology found that 82% of waterproof mascara, 63% of foundations, and 62% of liquid lipstick had high quantities of fluorine. While the researchers laid out the brands whose products they tested, they chose not to place which products independent high levels of PFAS.

Brands answer

The new EPA regulation will not accept an immediate effect of eliminating PFAS from these products. It volition simply force chemical manufacturers to disclose how much of certain types of PFAS is in them. Andrews says that much more regulation is required, but in the meantime, he believes consumers are becoming more aware of PFAS, which is forcing brands to be more transparent. "I think this EPA regulation filters down to these consumer product companies and cosmetic companies in terms of the fact that at that place is more public awareness about PFAS," he says. "The initial step for them is to understand their supply chain better to run into what contaminants are in their products and doing production testing."

Some brands are banning these chemicals of their own accord. Ikea for instance, has added PFAS to its list of banned substances. 50'Oreal has as well said information technology volition eliminate PFAS from their products, although information technology didn't provide a timeline for this procedure.

What consumers can do

Olson says that consumers tin can work to reduce their exposure to PFAS chemicals by choosing products that are labeled gratis of PFAS, but given how widespread the chemicals are, it's impossible to completely eliminate PFAS from your surroundings. "People cannot shop their way out of this problem," Olson says. "You and I, and everyone in the United States [are] walking around with these chemicals in our bodies. Unfortunately until the government cracks down on the utilise of these chemicals, nosotros are all guinea pigs beingness exposed to these chemicals."

There are at present several bills being proposed to fully ban PFAS chemicals. The No PFAS in Cosmetics Human activity, for example, would direct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to to ban PFAS from cosmetics. The Clean H2o Standards for PFAS Act would terminate polluters from contaminating waterways with toxic levels of PFAS. And the PFAS-Free War machine Purchasing Human action would prohibit the Department of Defense from procuring items with PFAS in them. Co-ordinate to Olson, we should know whether these bills pass by the end of the year.

Olson says that people who are concerned most PFAS should support these regulations. "Brands certainly accept a role to play in eliminating PFAS from their products, but to fully address the problem, we need the federal government to footstep in and have meaningful regulatory steps," he says. "What the EPA proposed was the first step in nifty down on the worst PFAS uses, only it is going to take a long time—and it is going to be a big fight—to reduce consumers' exposure to these chemicals."