LA class action lawsuit brought to you by Rob Bilott in Ohio was approved last month. It would have covered 7 million people, and possibly all those who have been exposed.
The chemicals have been linked in some cases to cancer, birth defects and kidney disease as well as a host of other health problems. Because they don’t naturally break down, they remain in the environment for an indefinite time.
PFOA (or PFOS) are two types of PFAS that have been proven to be so dangerous that they are being phased off the market. The lawsuit names 10 other companies that make PFAS. These PFAS are used in cookware, food packaging and firefighting foam. Last year, the Biden administration pledged to implement a massive PFAS mitigation plan at a cost exceeding $10bn.
The Guardian spoke with Bilott about his lawsuit. These remarks have been edited to be more concise and clear.
Over the past 20 years, you have been focusing on exposing the dangers of a class chemicals we call PFAS. You use litigation to hold companies responsible for spreading PFAS and push regulators to do more to protect the public. Youve written a book, Exposure,Your legal battle was made into a Hollywood movie, The Lawyer Who Became DuPonts Worst Nighmare. Dark WatersDocumentary as well. Why are you so passionate about this topic?
This is a serious public health problem. It is very frustrating to look back at the science that has become clearer over time about how dangerous these chemicals can be and how widespread they are. These chemicals were known to be dangerous and could end up in our water, soil, wildlife, and ultimately into our bodies. Yet, the companies continued to use them. After making billions of money over the decades, these same companies are trying to shift the costs of cleaning up this mess onto all of us. I’m trying to do my best to ensure that the health risk is addressed and that those responsible for causing the problems are held accountable – not everyone.
Many people may associate your work with the fight against DuPont. A large manufacturer of PFAS chemical used to make Teflon coatings in cookware. You are now taking on many other manufacturers. What are you hoping to accomplish with this case?
These chemicals were first discovered in litigation against DuPont. DuPont had been purchasing PFOA from 3M and using it to make Teflon. Slowly, we realized that not only was PFOA present in the environment but a larger number of PFAS chemicals were also found in the blood. However, we were told that all of the science on PFOA had been done. No similar research was done on the other chemicals. The companies stated that it was up the exposed people to prove that these PFAS chemicals caused harm.
We filed the class action in 2018. The goal is not to collect money damages, but to have the federal court require the creation of a new scientific committee that would be able to examine this mixture of PFAS chemicals in blood and confirm that they are causing harm. We want independent scientists to investigate these harms and we ask the companies to pay for this funding.
Last October, President Biden’s announcementPlan to prevent PFAS from entering the air, drinking water systems, and food supply. It also aims to increase cleanup efforts to reduce the negative effects of these harmful pollutants. It is expected that this plan will cost taxpayers billions. Biden has set aside $10bn to deal with PFASs in drinking water. You recently sent a letterTo the Biden Administration addressing the plan and offering your support. You also voiced your opposition to taxpayers funds being used for the cleanup of PFAS pollution. Are you dissatisfied with not only the manufacturers, but also the EPA?
It is disappointing that we have had multiple PFAS actions plans announced over the years starting in 2009. We had another plan in 2016, but nothing happened with the first plan. Another set of promises was made, but again nothing happened. We now have the new plan. (But) there is still much debate over whether these materials should have a regulatory regime or should they be declared dangerous.
After working with this issue for so many years, I came to realize that there is a serious systemic problem in how our regulatory system works. It is the way science is generated, peer-reviewed, peer-reviewed, and how it interacts with our legal systems. Who has the burden to prove a chemical safe or dangerous? All of this creates a storm of inaction. People have had to go to court for years to fight for clean water and compensation for the damage done. It almost seems as though the system has an intentional system of roadblocks.
It sounds great to tell the public that we were moving forward and that we were going to clean this mess up. We will allocate billions to do so. But the money shouldn’t be coming from us, the vulnerable people. This should not be a burden on taxpayers. The federal government should not bail out these chemical companies with billions of dollars that they should be spending to clean it up.
Access to voluminous files containing internal documents from various companies that you have sued over PFAS has been granted. Many of these documents prove that companies knew decades ago that PFAS was dangerous and that it was spreading rapidly, accumulating in people. Can you elaborate?
It is very eye-opening to see the internal files of these companies and the information they had that went back decades. This information was not shared with us. One example of this was the fact that the main manufacturer of PFOS knew by the 1970s that PFOS had been found in the blood of many Americans and that it was at very high levels. In fact, 3M scientists had sat down to determine a safe blood level for PFOS in the 1990s.
They knew at the time that PFOS was found in blood of the general population of the United States at around 30 parts per million. The safe blood level was calculated by an internal 3M scientist at 1.05 parts/ billion. It was almost 30 times lower that the actual level. Why wasn’t everyone told? Why weren’t we told? This is what we find out decades later.
Documents such as these show that the potential danger to human health was recognized many decades ago. We are still debating whether to take action to eliminate them or who should be held accountable.
This is one reason I do my best to ensure people see the facts and make their own decisions about who should be held responsible for the threat they have created.
This story was co-published by The New Lede, a journalism initiative of The Environmental Working Group.
