Environmental groups have recently voiced strong objections to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to reconsider drinking water limits for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS compounds.These substances have been linked to cancer and can damage the immune and endocrine systems, among other health concerns.

The limits were initially finalized by the Biden administration in April as part of a broader effort to curb exposure to these hazardous “forever chemicals.” The regulations targeted six of the most concerning PFAS out of over 10,000 known compounds. While the EPA stated it would maintain limits for two PFAS, it also proposed extending compliance timelines for utilities and scrapping the limits for the others. One advocate described the EPA’s action as detrimental to public health and a “victory for chemical companies.”

The central questions are: How protective were the original Biden regulations, and how significant will the impact be from scaling them back?

Experts generally agree that reversing course is not beneficial for the public.PFAS are present in virtually everyone’s bloodstreams, and specific types like PFOS and PFOA are known or likely to increase the risk of kidney and testicular cancers. Other compounds initially targeted by the Biden administration have been associated with elevated cholesterol, heart disease, and an increased risk of diabetes.

These chemicals have become widespread in both people and the environment due to their use in various products,ranging from outdoor clothing to cooking utensils and food packaging.Runoff from firefighting foam containing PFAS has contributed to drinking water contamination, along with manufacturers deliberately discharging the chemicals into rivers, despite awareness of the associated health risks.

Arguments Against Relaxing PFAS Regulations

Critics of the EPA’s revised approach argue that it prioritizes corporate interests over public health. Erik Olson, a strategic director at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), suggests the EPA’s approach is to allow the use of chemicals and then regulate them if problems arise.

“Ultimately, we need to be phasing these chemicals out,”

Olson believes the EPA’s changes to the PFAS rules violate the Safe Drinking Water Act’s “anti-backsliding provision,” which requires that any revisions to drinking water standards must be at least as protective as the previous standards. The law also sets a five-year limit for compliance timelines, while the proposed delay of the PFOS and PFOA compliance deadline to 2031 would grant water utilities seven years.

“Ultimately, we need to be phasing these chemicals out,” Olson stated. “We have to turn off the spigot and stop using these things so that five generations from now, our great-great-great grandchildren won’t be dealing with them.”