Massachusetts advocates who have been pushing for greater regulation of PFAS say they’re frustrated and confused over the state legislature’s failure to pass a billthis session to limit the so-called “forever chemicals.”
Studies have shown PFAS exposure may lead to a wide range of health effects, including increased risk of prostate, kidney and testicular cancers, developmental delays in children, decreased fertility, and a reduction in immune response to infections.
A bill that would have banned the use of PFAS in food packaging, firefighter foam, and a range of consumer products was introduced in the Senate by State Sen. Julian Cyr and the House by Rep. Kate Hogan, but was not passed by either chamber before the session ended last Friday.
“Our legislature appears to be dysfunctional, which is crazy given how most of them are from the same party,” said Kyla Bennett, director of science policy at the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. “They can’t agree on anything. They can’t do anything to protect the citizens of this state from harmful environmental practices like PFAS in consumer products, and children’s products, and everywhere.”
The Trump administration plans to roll back or delay federal limits for PFAS in drinking water.
“It’s insane to me that in the wake of EPA’s deregulatory, anti-science rhetoric, that the Massachusetts legislature cannot find the courage to step up to the plate and do the bare minimum to protect people who live in the Commonwealth,” Bennett said. “It’s just so frustrating.”
For Clint Richmond, conservation chair for the Massachusetts Sierra Club, the failure to pass legislation is more perplexing than anything.
“It’s not so much that I’m disappointed. I’m puzzled,” Richmond said. “We’ve been working on this, with legislators and with our members, to try and get this passed. So there’s been a lot of effort on this.”
The majority of members in both chambers were co-petitioners on the bills, and the legislation was supported by a wide range of medical experts and others who testified at a state house briefing, Richmond said.
“So there’s a lot of awareness,” he said.
Among those who have been trying to build that awareness is Deirdre Cummings, legislative director for MassPIRG.
“We brought in firefighters, we brought in residents from communities who have lost their well water, who have lost their drinking water, who have been exposed to PFAS. We have coalitions of scientists, we brought forth evidence and studies. And we have small organizations, we have large organizations. We sent postcards. We went door to door and educated the public as to what the problem is, and they wanted to know about it. And we held legislative briefings and we testified at hearings,” Cummings said. “And I don’t know, really, what more we can do on this side of the game.”
The legislation was opposed by business groups in the state, including Associated Industries of Massachusetts and the Massachusetts Chemistry & Technology Alliance, which have argued that industries rely on the chemicals, and that suitable alternatives aren’t available.
In a written statement, Sen. Cyr, who introduced the legislation in the senate, chose to emphasize steps the legislature has taken to address PFAS.
“While I’m disappointed that we were not able to advance omnibus legislation on PFAS this session, the Massachusetts Senate has made meaningful strides in addressing these forever chemicals and protecting public health,” Cyr said.
Cyr pointed to a budget amendment the Senate passed to better study, monitor and address the health impacts of PFAS, in addition to funding to support PFAS remediation and research on the chemicals by the Silent Spring Institute.
“These steps represent significant progress, but there is more work to do,” Cyr said. “PFAS chemicals remain a serious threat to our environment and public health, and I remain committed to advancing science-based solutions to meet this emerging environmental health challenge.”
The legislature also failed to pass a billintroduced by Sen. Jo Comerford that would have banned the use of sewage sludge as fertilizer in Massachusetts. These so-called “biosolids” have been known to contaminate land with PFAS.
“You’d think that would be an easy slam dunk,” Bennett said. “Let’s not spread biosolids on our farm fields. Let’s not contaminate our farm and our food supply and hurt our farmers. But they can’t even get that done. It’s despicable, and shame on them.”
Many other states have taken a range of measuresto limit PFAS contamination, including banning the chemicals’ use in carpets, cleaning products and textiles. Every New England state except Massachusetts has banned PFAS in firefighting foam. To date, though, the Massachusetts legislature has only banned PFAS in firefighters equipment, known as turnout gear. That ban is set to take effect next year.
In the meantime, contamination in Massachusetts continues to worsen, Cummings said.
“We’ve spent close to $1.5 billion in Massachusetts just to clean up the problem, and we’re not doing anything to tackle the problem at the source,” she said.
Responsibility for eliminating that contamination extends beyond the legislature, Richmond added.
“We’re going to continue to urge Massachusetts companies and national industries to commit to phasing out PFAS, to perform research and development for alternatives to PFAS, and to start marketing PFAS-free products,” he said.
