Public health advocates are optimistic that a Kamala Harris victory in the November U.S. presidential election will lead to further regulation of PFAS toxic “forever chemicals,” for which the Biden administration has already taken unprecedented regulatory action.
That’s partly based on past actions. Last year, Harris’s running mate, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, signed bold legislation banning the toxic PFAS in a range of common consumer products, from menstrual products to food packaging — a measure that public health advocates have called one of the “strongest bans in the world.”
Walz worked closely with victims of PFAS pollution when the legislation was introduced, said Sarah Doll, executive director of Safer States, which advocates for state regulations on toxic chemicals. “He has experience with the families … and just by having that, he can gain a deeper understanding of the complexities and the challenges that we face,” Doll said.
Related: Industry takes action to prevent regulation of PFAS pollution from semiconductors
PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals that are commonly used to make products that are resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally and can accumulate in people and the environment. The chemicals have been linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.
Although PFAS are added to thousands of consumer products, the U.S. federal government has done little to regulate how they’re used. Instead, states have begun enacting their own bans on PFAS in consumer goods in recent years, with Minnesota’s 2023 law banning the chemicals in 13 product categories, including clothing, children’s items and cookware.
Walz has been praised as a national leader in this area, including for signing the bill despite fierce opposition from 3M, one of the world’s largest corporations and PFAS producers, headquartered in Minnesota.
But some environmental groups have raised concerns about gray areas in the law’s language that regulators implementing the rules must interpret. The state must focus on enforcement of the most toxic of the 23,000 compounds defined by the law as PFAS, which is broader than the federal definition.
Only strong toxicological profiles exist for a very limited number of compounds. That could create a situation where dangerous new PFAS are ignored, but Doll said there has always been some uncertainty in the implementation of laws on toxic chemicals.
“I have not heard or seen or read anything here that is a stab in the back that will undermine the potential of this bill to be an effective, strong law,” Doll said, adding that Walz also signed legislation restricting the use of other toxic chemicals, such as flame retardants.
Harris, meanwhile, has won plaudits from environmental groups for her crackdown on big oil. As California’s attorney general, she filed criminal charges against some of that industry’s polluters and defeated an Obama administration proposal to allow offshore fracking, among other bold moves.
The Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, California, praised her for helping lead the 2013 opposition to a chemical industry-driven overhaul of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act, which was ultimately defeated and a stronger version was rewritten and passed several years later.
However, Harris was criticized by some environmental groups for refusing to take action against the Kettleman Hills hazardous waste facility, which has a decades-long history of toxic spills in a rural community of color. An EPA investigation later determined that the facility and the state had violated the civil rights of nearby residents.
Meanwhile, during her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney, she created one of the nation’s first environmental justice units. But it didn’t address the city’s most pressing environmental justice problem, Hunter’s Point, said Bradley Angel, executive director of Greenaction for Environmental Justice. The former U.S. Navy shipyard is contaminated with radioactive waste and other hazardous chemicals and is surrounded by a low-income neighborhood. It remains polluted.
“The [environmental justice] unity was important and precedent-setting, but what actually happened is that it did not meet its goals,” Angel said, adding that it was unclear why she did not take stronger action. Instead, she focused largely on smaller polluters, he added.
Harris’s record on Proposition 65, a California law that cracks down on toxic contamination of consumer products, was not particularly strong, several consumer advocacy groups told the Guardian, with legal action often brought because Harris’s office did not always take action.
But Harris was also part of the Biden administration’s 2021 PFAS Roadmap, a uniquely comprehensive plan to curb pollution that led earlier this year to tough new limits on the chemicals in drinking water.
The agency is also beginning to focus on air pollution, food contamination and more effective approaches to regulating the thousands of PFAS compounds on the market.
A second Trump presidency would likely mean an end to those efforts and any new regulations in the works. A Harris-Walz administration would likely continue the Biden administration’s policies, several former EPA officials who worked at the agency when one party retained power in a presidential election told the Guardian.
“A new administration will always revisit the policies of the previous administration,” said Walter Mugdan, a former EPA deputy regional administrator. “Biden and Harris seem to me to be fairly aligned on environmental issues, so I would expect only small overall changes rather than a wholesale change in emphasis or direction.”
