A Contentious Redefinition: The PFAS Controversy Within the Chemistry Sector
The ongoing contention surrounding an initiative to redefine per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has generated considerable debate within the chemistry sector. This initiative, led by the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (Iupac), aims to create a uniform terminology for describing these environmentally enduring chemicals. However, perspectives are markedly polarized.
Proponents contend that a unified definition would clarify and improve the regulation of PFAS. Importantly, it would tackle the inconsistencies in current global definitions that hinder regulatory frameworks. For example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) classifies PFAS as any molecule containing a single fully fluorinated carbon. Conversely, in the US, a substance must possess at least two adjacent fully fluorinated carbons to be deemed a PFAS. These discrepancies imply that substances such as trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) are regarded as PFAS by the OECD but not by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
On the other hand, detractors worry that fresh definitions might be excessively narrow or incomplete. In June, 20 PFAS specialists released a public declaration, voicing apprehensions that the redefinition initiatives could be driven more by political and economic agendas rather than robust science. They cautioned that vested interests might distort any new definitions to sway regulations.
This dispute was a primary focus at a townhall session during the American Chemical Society (ACS) gathering in Washington, DC. Michelle Rogers from Cargill, who is a member of Iupac’s science board, facilitated the conversation in the absence of the Iupac project team. Rogers defended Iupac’s reputation for formulating well-reasoned recommendations through thorough consultations with the global scientific community.
Iupac’s past president, Javier García-Martínez, reinforced the organization’s dedication to neutrality, highlighting that their endeavors are not swayed by governmental or commercial interests.
Despite these reassurances, skeptics like Jamie DeWitt of Oregon State University, a signatory of the critical June statement, remain doubtful. DeWitt champions the OECD’s PFAS definition as scientifically sound and insists on maintaining skepticism regarding the motivations behind alternative definitions.
The discussion highlights the intricate scenario surrounding PFAS categorization, with differing definitions impacting regulatory practices across various jurisdictions. In the US, this has led to a patchwork of state-specific regulations that compel industries to adapt accordingly. Numerous states have enacted or are contemplating new PFAS regulations, prompting companies to either comply cautiously or withdraw products from circulation.
The core of the matter lies in reconciling chemical and regulatory definitions. While acknowledging existing credible chemical definitions, critics argue that alternative definitions risk fostering regulatory discord rather than elucidating it. Regardless of the ultimate result of the Iupac initiative, global regulatory bodies may persist in adopting diverse PFAS definitions, complicating international compliance and regulatory practices even further.