Has the time finally come for ‘forever chemicals’ in Mass.?

Industry forces will resist a broad ban of PFAS. We can’t let them.

I commend the Globe for its editorial in support of An Act to Protect Massachusetts Public Health from PFAS (“Massachusetts should ban PFAS in consumer products,” Dec. 24, 2023). Our state has been a leader in PFAS testing, regulation, and research. The bill proposed by state Representative Kate Hogan and Senator Julian Cyr would advance public health through phasing out “forever chemicals” in many products by 2030. However, some industries resist a comprehensive approach and seek many exceptions for what they consider “essential” products without exploring nontoxic alternatives. Industries will continually broaden their definition of “essential” as a way to water down the bill once it is passed.

The Globe repeats the industry line against defining PFAS as a class, writing that “industry representatives say adopting too broad a definition … could outlaw compounds with no adverse health effects.” A vast amount of science now demonstrates health effects of many PFAS and shows similarities in mechanisms of action that make it likely that all PFAS have negative health effects. PFAS producers hid health effects findings on the two most common PFAS —PFOA and PFOS — for decades, and researchers had great difficulty in getting research funded and published. We cannot let this “tobacco science” approach keep us from getting rid of hazardous PFAS.

PHIL BROWN Director Social Science Environmental Health Research Institute Codirector, PFAS Project Lab Northeastern University Boston

The writer is a University Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Health Sciences at Northeastern.