(The Center Square) – Advocates taking aim at the wide array of “forever chemicals,” or PFAS, found in common personal care and household products spoke before the House Consumer Protection, Utilities and Technology committee Tuesday.
Experts testified about the dangers to human health and child development posed by products from makeup to baby clothes that contain the chemicals.
“The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as the Pennsylvania Department of Health have found associations between PFAS exposure and health effects like lower antibody response to vaccines, immune system suppression, increased cholesterol levels, pregnancy-induced hypertension, reduced fertility, liver damage, and increased risk of thyroid disease and the potential for cancer,” said Ian Louda, legislative coordinator for Clean Water Action.
Experts noted that the risks are especially great for young children whose bodies are still developing.
Stephanie Wein, statewide water and conservation advocate at PennEnvironment, said that the dangers are especially pronounced for children, who are still developing.
“Babies and young children are more vulnerable to the impacts that PFAS has on our hormones,” said Wein. “If you have endocrine disruption at that critical juncture, you’re going to have far-reaching effects, and so there’s a robust body of evidence that exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals on fetal and neonatal childhood growth and the development of the reproductive system can be linked to the early on puberty with estrogenetic effects linked to that, both girls and boys.”
New research has found that PFAS chemicals are more readily absorbed by the skin than previously understood. This poses increased risks for women who use menstrual and hygiene products on areas that absorb chemicals at 10 to 80 times the rate of other skin on the body.
Experts even warned against products that are not used directly on the body but degrade over time, leaving toxic dust around homes. This can include toys and other products that consumers don’t typically think about ingesting.
“Consumers can’t simply shop around the problem,” said Melanie Benish, vice president of government affairs at Environmental Working Group. “The presence of PFAS is not disclosed.”
Crucially, there is little consistency with regulation and labeling of these products. Representatives from the chemical industry noted that states who have taken a broad approach to banning PFAS chemicals have had a much harder time executing on the laws than those who have created targeted legislation.
That’s where both Republicans and Democrats on the committee agreed they’d like to meet the mark. The legislature has recent precedent for doing just that with legislation that passed banning the use of the chemicals for firefighting.
Newer firefighting chemicals have been developed which don’t rely on PFAS chemicals to get the job done. In the case of many household products, there was never a real need to add the chemicals, therefore it should, experts say, be little trouble to prohibit or limit their use. For example, clothing, feminine hygiene products, and cosmetics are all frequently made with organic materials.
“I’m not suggesting that we’re going to ban PFAS from products that, you know, necessarily need time and formulas to try and change things, but I think we should consider the importance of this legislation considering it has been done in other states and making sure that we’re predicting the women and children in this commonwealth especially,” said Rep. Mary Isaacson, D-Philadelphia.
“Come January, I’ll have my fourth granddaughter, and they’ll all be, you know, four years old and under. I think of them when I look at issues like this,” said Rep. Rob Kauffman of Chambersburg, noting he considers himself a conservative Republican. “I’ve always, you know, wanted to make sure we aren’t over-regulating industry. I still believe that, but I do believe that we need to be very cognizant of the health of our population.”
