Public health advocates are optimistic that a Kamala Harris win in the November presidential election in the US would lead to further regulation of PFAS toxic “forever chemicals”, on which the Biden administration has already taken unprecedented regulatory action.
In part that is based on past actions. Last year, Harris’s running mate, the Minnesota governor, Tim Walz, signed bold legislation prohibiting the use of toxic PFAS across a range of common consumer goods from menstrual products to food packaging – a measure that is considered by public health advocates to be among the “strongest bans in the world”.
Walz worked closely with victims of PFAS pollution as the legislation moved, said Sarah Doll, director of Safer States, which advocates for state-level regulations on toxic chemicals. “He has lived experience with the families … and just having that could bring a deeper understanding of the complexities and the challenges that we face,” Doll said.
Related: Industry acts to head off regulation on PFAS pollution from semiconductors
PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down, and can accumulate in humans and the environment. The chemicals are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.
Though PFAS are added to thousands of consumer products, the US federal government has done little to regulate how they are used. Instead, states in recent years have begun enacting their own bans on PFAS in consumer goods, and Minnesota’s 2023 law prohibits the chemicals in 13 product categories including clothing, children’s items and cookware.
Walz drew praise as a national leader on the issue in part for signing the bill despite intense opposition from 3M, one of the world’s largest corporations and PFAS producers, which is headquartered in Minnesota.
However, some environmental groups have raised concerns about gray areas in the law’s language that regulators implementing the rules must interpret. It requires the state to focus on enforcement of the most toxic of 23,000 compounds defined as PFAS by the law, which is broader than the federal definition.
Strong toxicological profiles only exist for a very limited number of compounds. That could create a situation in which dangerous new PFAS are ignored, but Doll said there was always some uncertainty in the implementation of toxic chemical laws.
“There is nothing I heard or saw or read in this that is a dagger that is going to undermine the potential for this to be an effective, strong law,” Doll said. She added Walz also signed legislation restricting the use of other toxic chemicals, like flame retardants.
Harris, meanwhile, has drawn wide praise from environmental groups for taking on big oil. As California’s attorney general, she pursued criminal charges against some of that industry’s polluters and defeated an Obama administration proposal to allow fracking off the coast, among other bold steps.
The Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, California, praised her for helping lead opposition in 2013 to an overhaul of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act pushed by the chemical industry. It was ultimately defeated and a stronger version rewritten and passed several years later.
However, Harris drew criticism from some environmental groups for declining to take action on the Kettleman Hills hazardous waste facility, which had a decades-long history of toxic spills in a rural community of color. An EPA investigation later determined the facility and state had violated nearby residents’ civil rights.
Meanwhile, during her tenure as San Francisco’s district attorney, she established what was among the first environmental justice units in the nation. But it did not tackle the most dire environmental justice problem in the city, Hunter’s Point, said Bradley Angel, executive director for Greenaction for Environmental Justice. The former US navy shipyard site is contaminated with radioactive waste and other dangerous chemicals, and is surrounded by a low-income neighborhood. It remains polluted.
“The [environmental justice] unit was important and precedence setting, but what actually happened is it did not live up to its goals,” Angel said, adding that it was unclear why she did not take stronger action. Instead, she largely targeted smaller polluters, he added.
Harris’s record on Proposition 65, a California law that addresses toxic contamination of consumer products, was not particularly strong, several consumer advocacy groups told the Guardian. They often initiated legal action because Harris’s office did not always act.
But Harris was also part of the Biden administration’s 2021 PFAS Roadmap, a first-of-its-kind comprehensive plan to rein in pollution that led to the establishment of strict new limits for the chemicals in drinking water implemented earlier this year.
The agency is also beginning to consider air pollution, food contamination and more efficient approaches to regulating the thousands of PFAS compounds on the market.
A second Trump presidency would be very likely to spell the end of those efforts and any new regulations in the works. A Harris-Walz administration would probably continue the Biden administration’s policies, several former EPA officials who worked at the agency when a party retained power during a presidential election told the Guardian.
“A new administration will always review the prior administration’s policies,” 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 minor overall changes versus a wholesale change in emphasis or direction.”
