PFAS-Free Revolution: How Consumer Demand Outpaces Regulation
Only three labs in the country can rigorously test down to the part-per-trillion level and help ... More brands validate PFAS-free claims with real, third party validated data. (Photo by DAVID PINTENS/BELGA MAG/AFP via Getty Images)
Forever chemicals (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances, known as PFAS) are pervasive synthetic compounds found in everything from water-resistant fabrics to food packaging. They pose alarming health risks, including cancer and organ damage. With these persistent toxins detected in 99% of Americans' bloodstreams primarily through contaminated water and food, regulatory agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are now racing to establish protective limits and reduce environmental contamination of these virtually indestructible substances. Real change, however, will be driven by the growing consumer demand for PFAS-free non-essential products.
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin outlined upcoming agency actions to address PFAS concerns. His long list of actions included the designation of an agency lead for PFAS, the creation of effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) for certain PFAS to stop these forever chemicals from entering drinking water systems, and initiatives to engage with Congress and industry to establish a clear liability framework that ensures the polluter pays and passive receivers are protected.
'I have long been concerned about PFAS and the efforts to help states and communities dealing with legacy contamination in their backyards. We are tackling PFAS from all of EPA's program offices, advancing research and testing, stopping PFAS from getting into drinking water systems, holding polluters accountable, and providing certainty for passive receivers. This is just a start of the work we will do on PFAS to ensure Americans have the cleanest air, land, and water,' said Zeldin. However, government cuts in the EPA and the recent dismissal of hundreds of scientists and experts who had been working on the federal government's global warming report may impact the agency's ability to deal with PFAS usage and regulation.
A recent study by the U.S. Geological Survey found that at least 45% of US drinking water samples ... More contained at least one type of PFAS
'But here is the reality: In the U.S. and globally for that matter, regulation isn't solely what's driving industry action. It's multi-faceted; The three recurring factors often discussed are: (1) increased consumer awareness of the PFAS issue; (2) genuine commitment to sustainability demanded by shareholders who are also consumers; and (3) the sheer scale of PFAS related legal action,' said Michelle Bellanca, Chief Executive Officer at Claros Technologies Incorporated in an exclusive interview. Retailers and brands want to proactively address the PFAS issue and stay ahead of the growing consumer concerns over forever chemicals. 'Regulation helps, but it's more tailwind than tip of the spear,' said Bellanca.
There are approximately 14,000 PFAS compounds with properties valued for durability and lubrication. Essential uses of PFAS may include products necessary for health and safety purposes where alternatives have not yet been established, such as medical devices or occupational protective clothing (firefighter clothing and equipment). PFAS are found in microprocessors and semiconductor devices, which may be considered essential or nonessential based on the use cases of the product.
PFAS can be found in many consumer products used every day, such as nonstick cookware, stain and water-resistant coatings for clothing, upholstery, carpets, umbrellas, food packaging (for ready-made-foods), cleaning products, personal care products (beauty products, dental floss, and sunscreens). All of these may be deemed nonessential uses of forever chemicals.
As consumers become more aware of PFAS in non-essential items, they may become more demanding in terms of purchasing items that have proven to be PFAS-free. Reports have indicated that kitchenware sales have spiked due to growing concerns about PFAS chemicals. Minnesota became the first to ban the sale of cookware containing PFAS early this year, while six states have enacted phase-outs of PFAS in cookware, including Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
Retailers may find that PFAS-free labels in the retail industry will probably become more important than GMO, organic, green, or other labels in consumer importance in terms of sustainability. Product labels can specify that products are made without added PFAS, rather than being truly PFAS-free, which can be misleading for consumers.
'When brands claim to be PFAS-free, they had better be ready to back it up. Most can't,' stated Bellanca. What makes PFAS labeling different from a vague green or organic label is that PFAS is scientifically detectable, even at parts per trillion. One part per trillion is like a single drop in 20 Olympic-sized pools, explains Bellanca. There are only three labs in the country that can rigorously test down to the part-per-trillion level and help brands confirm PFAS-free claims with real, third-party validated data. 'Bottom line: it's about transparency over taglines. If you're not testing, you're guessing,' said Bellanca.
Some companies are being proactive, and have been for years, especially in the outdoor apparel and accessories market. Fenix Outdoor International AG, with brands such as Fjällräven, a company known for quality backpacks and outdoor gear, has a Chemical Guideline and Restricted Substances List that all partners and suppliers must adhere to. It includes a broad ban on non-essential uses of fluorochemicals (PFAS).
Patagonia has been working on reducing and eliminating the use of PFAS in its products for the past fifteen years. The company just announced that for the Spring 2025 season and beyond, 100% of new products are made without intentionally added PFAS. Patagonia states that while there are more than 14,000 PFAS chemistries regulated by the new laws, only a few of these chemistries are used for a functional or technical purpose in clothing. These few are the chemistries the company is not adding to its products. Patagonia recognizes that there is a possibility with the amount of chemistries (over 14,000) that some of these might show up in different components of apparel and manufacturing processes, hence the use of the terminology, 'not intentionally added.'
'Made without added PFAS' just means the manufacturer didn't intentionally add it during production. But PFAS can sneak in upstream—like in untreated cotton or coatings from third-party raw material suppliers," explains Bellanca. Brands may still be held accountable, especially as consumer activism continues to grow.
In the U.S., mass awareness has not caught on with consumers, but the awakening is coming as a swell of legal action comes into play. More and more cases like the $12.5 billion 3M settlement are being noticed. 'Those payout settlement numbers—nine, ten, eleven figures—get attention. And with more than 300,000 U.S. companies using PFAS, we're only just beginning to see the impact,' claims Bellanca.
Phasing out PFAS in nonessential products is already underway, with the European Union (EU) leading legislative action with its mandate that went into effect in February 2025 specifying restrictions to be in effect by August 2026. One of the provisions is to minimize the use of substances of concern (including the placement of restrictions on their pervasive use in packaging materials), requiring that concentrations not exceed certain threshold levels. 'In Europe, informed consumers have driven real change, which is why the EU is way ahead on PFAS regulations and in the process of enacting EU-wide PFAS regulations under REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals),' stated Bellanca.
The PFAS issue represents both a challenge and an opportunity for retailers. The battle against forever chemicals represents a pivotal shift in consumer-corporate dynamics. Addressing it requires supply chain scrutiny and potential product reformulation. It also presents a chance for companies to lead on an important consumer health issue before regulations force action. As consumer awareness grows, PFAS-free products will likely gain a competitive advantage and provide retailers the opportunity to build trust with consumers. Retailers and brands must take the lead when it comes to protecting public health from persistent toxins, waiting for government action is no longer viable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
32 minutes ago
- Business Insider
What A-list economists are saying about Trump's tax bill as Musk rebels against it
Elon Musk has departed his role as a "special government employee" in Trump's White House — and he's using his time outside the administration to hammer the GOP spending bill that's a cornerstone of the president's agenda. "This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination," Musk wrote on X earlier this week. Trump responded by saying Musk's criticism of the legislation is "disappointing." President Trump's tax bill will likely face a vote in the Senate in the coming weeks after passing the House in May. It would reduce the tax rates of lower-income workers, particularly those earning less than $107,200, and eliminate taxes on tips, social security, and overtime. The bill would also cut spending on social programs like Medicaid and SNAP benefits, which provide food assistance to low-income Americans. Like Musk, investors and economists are seemingly concerned that the bill will cause the national debt to balloon and further widen the US budget deficit. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said this week that it would grow the deficit by $2.4 trillion over the next decade . Trump and his allies have pushed back, arguing that higher economic growth from lower taxes would help boost government revenue. Here's what top economists are saying about the bill. Phillip L. Swagel, director of the Congressional Budget Office Despite the lower tax rates for low earners, Swagel said in a May 20 letter that the bill would negatively impact poorer Americans. "CBO estimates that household resources would decrease by an amount equal to about 2 percent of income in the lowest decile (tenth) of the income distribution in 2027 and 4 percent in 2033, mainly as a result of losses of in-kind transfers, such as Medicaid and SNAP," he wrote. "By contrast, resources would increase by an amount equal to 4 percent for households in the highest decile in 2027 and 2 percent in 2033, mainly because of reductions in the taxes they owe." William McBride, chief economist at the Tax Foundation McBride, along with several colleagues at the non-partisan Tax Foundation think tank, said in a May 23 report that while the bill would support economic growth, it wouldn't be enough to offset the revenue loss from tax cuts. "Our preliminary analysis finds the tax provisions included in the House-passed bill would increase long-run GDP by 0.8 percent," the report said. "The bill's tax and spending changes would increase the 10-year budget deficit by $2.6 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the deficit would increase by $1.7 trillion over ten years before interest costs." It continued: "The bill's tax provisions alone would reduce federal tax revenue by $4.1 trillion from 2025 through 2034 on a conventional basis before added interest costs. On a dynamic basis, accounting for economic growth, the revenue reduction would fall by nearly 22 percent to $3.2 trillion over 10 years before added interest costs." 6 Nobel Laureates Six Nobel Prize-winning economists — including Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, Peter Diamond, Paul Krugman, Oliver Hart, and Joseph Stiglitz — said in a June 2 letter that the bill would worsen wealth inequality in the US. "The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income. Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households," the letter said. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them," it added. Ken Rogoff, professor of economics at Harvard University Rogoff, former chief economist at the IMF, cast doubt on the notion that the bill would boost growth in a piece for Project Syndicate this week. "Trump and his acolytes argue that his "big, beautiful bill" will supercharge economic growth, generating enough revenue to make up for sweeping tax cuts. But history offers little support for such claims," he wrote. "While both Democratic-led spending sprees and Republican-backed tax cuts have fueled the growth of US debt over the past two decades, tax reductions have accounted for the lion's share of the increase. Moreover, the notion that tax cuts pay for themselves was already discredited in the 1980s, when President Ronald Reagan's tax cuts led to soaring deficits rather than self-sustaining growth." He added: "Will America's rising debt ultimately trigger a full-blown crisis? Perhaps, but a continued upward drift in long-term interest rates is more likely." Desmond Lachman, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Lachman, a former IMF official who currently works for a conservative-leaning think tank, said in a June 4 post that rising bond yields, a declining dollar, and appreciating gold prices could be harbingers of an economic crisis brought on by Trump-driven policy volatility. Trump's tax bill is adding to investors' fears due to its inflationary implications. But one of its clauses undermines confidence in the reliability of the returns on Treasurys, he said. "That bill includes a clause that has to be sending shivers down foreign investors' spines. According to Section 899, the US Treasury can impose additional taxes of up to 20 percent on income earned by foreign entities from countries that enact taxes deemed 'unfair' to US interests."
New York Post
39 minutes ago
- New York Post
Trump likens Russia-Ukraine war to kids fighting ‘like crazy' on playground
WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky are similar to children fighting on a playground and that more time may be needed before 'pulling them apart.' 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy. They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled,' Trump told reporters while hosting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz in the Oval Office. 'Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart. And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday. I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot' because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart before they're able to be pulled apart.' Advertisement 3 President Trump likened Russia and Ukraine's leaders to angry children on Thursday. AFP via Getty Images Trump didn't say how Putin responded to the analogy, but revealed that the Russian leader shared plans to further attack Ukraine in the wake of Zelensky's covert operations over the past week to sabotage warplanes and infrastructure — including an audacious drone strikes to destroy bombers deep inside Russia and a fresh bombing of the Kerch Strait bridge to Crimea. 'He actually told me him and made it very clear, he said, 'We have no choice but to attack based on that, and it's probably not going to be pretty,'' Trump said. Advertisement 3 Trump said Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky may need to fight more before being pulled apart. AP 3 Trump has attempted to force Putin and Zelensky to make peace. STRINGER/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 'I don't like it. I said, 'Don't do it. You shouldn't do it. You should stop it.' But again, there's a lot of hatred.' Trump has attempted to browbeat both sides to the bargaining table — attacking Zelensky as a 'dictator without elections' in February in a sign of wavering US support before blasting Putin last month for continued bombing of civilian areas of Ukraine, saying he had 'gone absolutely CRAZY!' His remarks about the sides needing to fight it out for longer are a significant evolution from his campaign-trail prediction that he would bring peace immediately by calling the parties on the phone.
Newsweek
43 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Sunrun CEO Warns Against Congressional 'Rug Pull' on Clean Energy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. The U.S. solar industry took a hit late last month when Republicans in the House of Representatives passed the "big beautiful" budget reconciliation bill that would largely eliminate tax credits for clean energy. Those Biden-era incentives for renewable energy, battery manufacturing, EVs and other clean tech have driven hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in renewable energy. Without the tax policy, analysts warn, more than $500 billion worth of announced but pending investments in the clean tech sector are at risk. Shares for rooftop solar companies tumbled on news of the bill's passage. California-based Sunrun, a leader in combining rooftop solar with home battery energy storage, saw shares plunge nearly 40 percent on news of the bill's passage. "We immediately went to work on how we can ensure our message about the importance of what we do for Americans on energy independence and advancing the agenda around energy dominance is heard," Sunrun CEO Mary Powell told Newsweek as she and colleagues in the clean energy sector attempt to change the bill. "Without changes it would be ripping the rug out from under 5 million plus customers." The company's stock price has since regained much of its value as attention turns to the Senate where the renewable energy industry is hoping that cooler heads will prevail and restore some elements of support. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the budget bill produced by the House would pull the rug from under the solar and battery storage industries, harming the U.S. ability to meet energy demands. Sunrun CEO Mary Powell said the budget bill produced by the House would pull the rug from under the solar and battery storage industries, harming the U.S. ability to meet energy demands. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Getty/Canva/Sunrun Industry executives argue that as the U.S. enters a period of surging demand for electricity, solar, wind and battery storage are often the fastest and cheapest ways to add power. Last year, some combination of renewable energy and storage accounted for roughly 90 percent of new additions to the nation's electric grid. The House bill's draconian cuts to renewable energy pose particular threats to rooftop and community solar. In addition to repealing tax credits far sooner than initially intended, the bill would eliminate the ability to transfer the credits and restrict the use of tax credits in lease arrangements for solar installations, which is a common business model for solar companies. Clean tech companies are also counting on the local economic impact of investments that flowed to red states and Republican Congressional Districts as the renewable energy industry brings more manufacturing on shore to reduce dependence on imported products. About two dozen Republican members of Congress have signed letters supporting the clean energy tax credits, including four influential members of the Senate. Newsweek spoke with Powell, a power industry veteran, about how the industry and her company hope to persuade members of the Senate to make changes. Powell has been Sunrun's CEO since 2021and before that she led Green Mountain Power Corporation, Vermont's main electricity provider, for more than a decade. This conversation has been lightly edited for length. Newsweek: What are your chances of getting this bill to change? And, I guess it would have to change somewhat dramatically from the version that passed the House. Mary Powell: We had multiple conversations with Members to make sure the depth of what we bring to the United States from an energy independence perspective was understood. All of that work will be imported as the Senate now tackles the latest language that ultimately came out of the House. I've been in energy for about 24 years, and I like to say there's always a gravitational pull towards things landing in a commonsense way, something that is supportive of what needs to happen in terms of the American economy and energy capacity. So, I continue to believe that this will land in a reasonable place because that's what would make the most sense for Americans. It also makes the most sense in the context of the President's agenda, which is really about growth, about energy capacity, about making sure that we have enough resources to grow and ensure that we're meeting all the demands of the future. Given how much of the development and economic benefits from the clean energy sector have happened in Republican districts, I think it was a disappointment to a lot of folks in the sector to not see any of those Republicans who had signed letters of support for the credits actually stand up. What do you make of that? It seems like that indicates soft support for the tax credits given the other hard choices they have to make. The reality is America has built a thriving storage and solar industry, which is powering over 300,000 jobs. We now have 330 U.S.-based manufacturing facilities and $285 billion of investments. So yes, to your point, there are a lot of reasons for folks to support this. There was strong support in the House, there have been strong supporters and statements in the Senate. This was middle-of-the-night legislation and resolving of party differences. And I feel very clear that a lot of those leaders in the House are still going to be working very hard ultimately to land us in a place that makes sense. The process is rarely, in my experience, clean, straightforward and simple. On the Senate side, we have four fairly prominent Republican senators who have signed a letter in support of keeping the clean energy tax credits. What makes you think that those senators would be more inclined to follow through on that versus what we saw happen in the House? The language as written now would have dramatic impacts in a lot of states that are really important to Republican Senate leadership. And I think the Senate is known for historically really working hard to strike that balance of what ultimately makes sense for Americans. I think they're very sensitive to not doing dramatic rug pulls out from under industry. So, as things work through the process and people start to stare at the stark realities of moving in such a knee-jerk fashion, I think you'll see more and more really start to focus on, 'How do we land this in a way that is not so disruptive to the American economy and so disruptive to the American energy independence agenda?' Many are very concerned about this issue of capacity. At Sunrun, we're really America's storage company. We're bringing on the equivalent of a nuclear power plant a year in terms of dispatchable energy capacity because we are leaning in so hard to storage. My experience would suggest—and my conversations would suggest—that their job is to land in a place that is not so highly disruptive to the economies of the very states that they all go home to. And what do you say to the critics of the tax credits who argue that your business, your industry, should be able to compete without the subsidies? What's really important is we're deploying way newer technology. So, we're using the tax structure to accelerate the adoption of storage, which from a mass market perspective has really only been around for a couple of years. It's really important to remember that the tax structure for us, for the work we're doing is not, it's not about supporting a technology that has been around for 15 or 20 years, it's actually supporting innovation around technology As a former utility executive, I care deeply about America having enough energy capacity. I'm all in on nuclear, on all these resources that we need. But the reality is, they're really hard to build and they take a lot of time. So, we can scale fast with these [storage battery] technologies. I think as people understand that it opens up a different perspective. On top of that, I would also say that what we've been advocating for is just a reasonable glide path. The languages as it sits now is sort of the opposite of fostering capitalism and a productive economy in the United States. You just don't do rug pulls, you come up with a structured way to allow capitalism and innovation to respond. On that topic, what might a glide path for phasing out the credits look like? I'll point back to what the House Ways and Means Committee did. I think things needed work from that bill, but you know, in, in the context of how I might structure a glide path, it would be maybe more extended than what they did. But it was very thoughtful. And what do you say to folks on the Hill in regard to the U.S. positioning itself to compete with China and other countries for this industry of the future? That's one of the many reasons why it's so important that we come up with a really smart, thoughtful glide path. Because we don't have a chance of winning the race with China if we don't scale at a faster clip in terms of our own energy capacity. Just look at what's happening with AI. We need to scale quickly, and this is a really strong way to contribute to that effort. This industry has contributed to America's energy dominance across the world and independence at home. A lot of onshoring has been done. Are there challenges going deep into the supply chain? Yes, as is true for a lot of products in the United States. With the appropriate glide path, you're incentivizing all of that innovation and capitalism to do that sort of last step in the onshoring. That really puts America in an incredibly strong place from an energy independence and manufacturing perspective.
