Feds accused of walking back regulations on ‘forever chemicals’

The federal government is catching flak from environmentalists who say Ottawa is walking back plans to protect the public from “forever chemicals.”

Instead of taking a precautionary approach, critics say, the government is allowing industry to slow-roll regulation.

“The burden is always placed on us… to prove that these substances are harmful,” says Cassie Barker, senior program manager for toxics with advocacy group Environmental Defence.

But the government says it is trying to avoid having its regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly called PFAS, stripped away by a court challenge.

PFAS are a class of thousands of chemicals used in cosmetics, clothing, food packaging, firefighting foam and more. Because they do not break down in nature, they can bioaccumulate in animals and humans, and can cause health issues like cancer, endocrine disorders and thyroid disease.

Makers of these chemicals have known about their potential harms for decades, but have been slow to take any action — leading to a flurry of lawsuits in the U.S. and, more recently, in British Columbia. Now, critics say the chemical industry is deploying the same delay tactics to fight the federal government’s attempts at regulation.

On Monday, Environment and Climate Change Canada and Health Canada published a draft report on PFAS. The report informs policy makers developing regulations to restrict dangerous chemicals, and it proposes that PFAS are entering, or could enter the environment at harmful levels. But the federal government says a PFAS subgroup, called fluoropolymers, should be studied separately because there is evidence fluoropolymers have “different exposure and hazard profiles than other PFAS.”

That’s a serious concern for environmentalists and health experts who say carving out a separate study for fluoropolymers is a retreat from its proposal last year to consider the entire PFAS class as toxic under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. By studying fluoropolymers separately, some critics say the regulatory process is being further delayed.

Barker told Canada’s National Observer that time is of the essence and “unfortunately we don't have a timeline for that proposed alternative assessment for fluoropolymers.” She said despite the best effort of scientists, the Canadian government can’t efficiently research each chemical in a reasonable timeframe.

“We can't let industry say that the absence of evidence of harm is evidence of safety,” she said.

Barker said the reason scientists urge regulators to treat PFAS as a class, rather than investigating and regulating each chemical separately, is to avoid playing “whack-a-mole with toxics,” where one chemical is regulated and another equally problematic lookalike chemical is used in its place. Because the path from research to regulating a chemical can take years, it’s better to regulate PFAS in one fell swoop, she said.

Minister of Environment and Climate Change Steven Guilbeault told Canada’s National Observer the government is taking “unprecedented” action on forever chemicals, but to withstand court challenges, regulation decisions must align with science.

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

“We are not losing time on this file,” he said.

Stakeholders and other interested parties have until September 11 to provide their feedback on the draft report.

Jennifer Beeman with Breast Cancer Action Quebec said in a statement that PFAS regulations have already been underway for three years “and will continue to drag on with additional rounds of consultation and delay tactics from industry lobbyists.”

“The federal government must resist industry’s false claims, continue to hold its PFAS class definition, and protect the regulatory process from industry meddling,” she said.

“Precaution must drive protective regulation, not powerful lobbying interests intent on continuing to pollute while the rest of us pay the price.”

Ottawa’s forthcoming regulations follow British Columbia becoming the first province to sue chemical companies, like 3M and DuPont de Nemours, over forever chemicals in June.