Defending the Science on PFAS

In June of 2020, 16 experts on PFAS, including myself, published an article in Environmental Science & Technology Letters, providing a scientific explanation for why a class-based approach to the over 9,000 separate but related PFAS chemicals is appropriate and necessary. Two scientists, who disclosed that they work for Honeywell International Inc., a manufacturer of PFAS refrigerant gases and other fluorinated products, many of which are PFAS, recently objected to our article.

We (the authors of the original paper) have issued a rebuttal that covers how they have misinterpreted the science and why we disagree with their suggestion that every PFAS needs to be extensively evaluated before action to protect public health and the environment can be taken. This experience is an example of a representatives of a company with a financial interest in PFAS chemicals making erroneous scientific claims that maintain business as usual, even if at the expense of public and ecological health.

About the Authors

Anna Reade

Staff Scientist, Healthy People & Thriving Communities program
Blog Post

Managing the risk of these “forever chemicals” has focused primarily on one chemical—out of thousands—at a time. It doesn’t work, so we must change this system to protect public health.

Join Us

When you sign up you'll become a member of NRDC's Activist Network. We will keep you informed with the latest alerts and progress reports.