### Texas Attorney General Launches Pioneering PFAS Lawsuit Against Chemical Leaders DuPont and 3M
In a significant legal effort, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has initiated a landmark lawsuit against major players in the chemical sector, DuPont and 3M, along with Corteva, a spin-off of DowDuPont, and its subsidiary EIDP. The lawsuit focuses on the producers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as “forever chemicals,” accusing them of years of consumer deception and ecological damage. This case has the potential to establish a legal benchmark for holding companies liable for willfully jeopardizing public health and the environment via intentional misinformation.
#### Core of the Allegations: Years of Misrepresentation
The complaint, submitted on December 11, 2023, charges these corporations with breaching Texas consumer protection statutes by promoting PFAS-containing products as safe, despite having scientific data on their harmful effects for decades. Texas legislation prohibits “false, misleading, or deceptive acts” within commerce, and the state claims that these companies misrepresented their products and intentionally concealed pivotal information regarding health risks and environmental degradation linked to PFAS.
The legal documents indicate that brands such as Teflon, Stainmaster, and Scotchgard—recognized names across Texas and the country—were significant examples of products that subjected consumers and the environment to hazardous PFAS. These “forever chemicals” are noted for their exceptional durability and resistance to stains and water; however, they linger in the environment indefinitely, bioaccumulating in the food chain and presenting considerable health threats.
#### Years of Recognized Hazard: Internal Documentation and Ignored Alerts
The lawsuit presents a troubling record of corporate negligence and secrecy stretching back over fifty years:
1. **DuPont’s Early Awareness (1960s-1970s):**
– DuPont recognized by the 1960s that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a category of PFAS, was harmful to both humans and wildlife. At that time, scientific evidence indicated that PFOA was resistant to environmental degradation and accumulated in living beings.
– By 1979, internal investigations at DuPont disclosed that PFOA was detectable in the blood of its workforce, who exhibited significantly elevated rates of health issues compared to those unexposed.
2. **3M’s Toxicology Findings (1976-1990s):**
– 3M reportedly started tracking PFAS levels in employee blood as early as 1976 due to rising health concerns. By 1984, internal studies validated scientists’ fears: PFAS were accumulating in human beings.
– By the late 1990s, a toxicologist at 3M determined a “safe” level of the PFAS compound perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in human blood to be 1.05 parts per billion (ppb). Alarmingly, the concentration measured in the average blood of the U.S. populace was approximately 30 times greater. Yet, 3M did not disclose this information to regulatory authorities or the public.
These disclosures undermine the companies’ claimed commitments to safety and openness. Despite increasing evidence of injury, these firms persisted in marketing and distributing products rich in PFAS, allegedly valuing profit over consumer welfare and ecological stewardship.
#### Environmental and Health Hazards of PFAS
PFAS substances are infamously enduring in the ecosystem, earning them the moniker “forever chemicals.” They can move through air and water, disseminating contamination significantly beyond their original sources. Once ingested or absorbed, PFAS amass in human bodies and take extensive periods to decompose.
The health repercussions associated with PFAS exposure are extensive and severe, including:
– Elevated cancer risk
– Disruption of hormonal and reproductive functions
– Suppression of the immune system
– Developmental delays in children
– Damage to liver and kidneys
The ecological consequences of PFAS are equally alarming, as they poison soil, groundwater, and surface water. As these substances permeate ecosystems, they accumulate in flora, fauna, and eventually within the human food supply.
#### An Innovative Legal Approach in PFAS Litigation
What sets Texas’s lawsuit apart is its emphasis on consumer protection law rather than conventional methods in PFAS litigation. Previous legal actions against PFAS manufacturers, often spearheaded by state authorities, have generally aimed at obtaining damages for remediation expenses, water contamination, and public health emergencies. While those lawsuits are also based on alleged corporate negligence, the Texas case redirects the focus to misleading consumers—a core breach of trust and a violation of state law.
This inventive legal approach may pave the way for other states and organizations to file similar claims under consumer protection laws, potentially broadening pathways for justice against corporations accused of environmental harms.
#### Industry Opposition
The companies implicated in the lawsuit have vigorously contested the allegations. DuPont released a statement refuting the claims as “without merit.”