Will Trump kill Canada's PFAS rules?

National Observer

6 days ago

Canada is expected to finalize rules on toxic PFAS chemicals — but the government's recent silence has left environmental advocates spooked that the groundbreaking effort could be derailed by Trump's trade war.
"I assume US chemical industry lobbyists are looking to see how they can capitalize on the trade war with Canada," said Elaine MacDonald, program director for healthy communities at Ecojustice. 'We are concerned.'
PFAS are a class of around 15,000 water- and grease-repellant chemicals that are used in everything from cars to cosmetics to cookware. Nicknamed "forever chemicals" because they don't break down in nature, the chemicals are linked to cancer and can harm the kidneys and liver, cause reproductive harm and hurt the endocrine and immune systems.
In March, the federal government reached the penultimate step in the process of listing most PFAS as toxic under Canada's Environmental Protection Act — a move that, once finalized, will let officials widely regulate the chemicals. Consultation ended in early May, paving the way for the final step of regulations that, months later, the government has yet to finalize.
In a statement, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) said the government plans to restrict PFAS in firefighting foams and restrict use of the chemicals for non-medical purposes by 2027. It expects to finalize the listing in 2026. However, timelines are "subject to change."
In comparison, it took federal officials about two years, from 2020 to 2022, to list plastics as toxic under Canada's environmental laws and start regulating the material by banning six single-use plastic items.
Canada isn't alone in its push to regulate PFAS. Several European countries and the EU have proposed or implemented sweeping measures to restrict use of the chemicals in recent years, as have several US states. The American federal government was also taking measures to tackle the chemicals — until Trump took office.
Canada is expected to finalize rules on toxic PFAS chemicals — but the government's recent silence has left environmental advocates spooked that the groundbreaking effort could be derailed by Trump's trade war.
Since then, the Trump administration has repealed proposed limits on how much PFAS industry can release into the environment; rolled back drinking water standards for the chemicals; tweaked federal rules to weaken state-level efforts to restrict the chemicals and defunded research on harm they cause.
"Canada is not a country that typically leads the way," said MacDonald. "If other countries start weakening their commitments to regulate PFAS, as the US has already, Canada will likely try to do the same. I expect that it will look more like dragging their feet on regulations rather than an outright retreat."
Tariffs and lobbyists
The US has already used PFAS to justify some of its tariff battles. In February, the US Trade Representative singled out European measures meant to largely eliminate the production and use of PFAS as a "trade barrier," a designation that observers say aims to force the bloc to ditch the rules or suffer even higher tariffs on trade with the US.
Rémy Alexandre, toxics project lead at Ecojustice, said PFAS has not yet come up publicly in Canada's trade negotiations with the US. But she said the fact they've played into US-EU trade negotiations — combined with Trump's aggressive rollback of American regulations — suggests chemical producers are rallying the Trump administration in their worldwide fight against PFAS regulations.
American chemical producers and their lobby groups have been involved in Canada's years-long push to regulate the chemicals — it started in 2021 — submitting comments in an effort to "chip away" at the proposed rules, she said.
Canada's National Observer asked the American Chemistry Council, America's largest chemical industry lobby group, and its Canadian equivalent, the Chemistry Industry Association of Canada, for comment about their position on Canada's planned PFAS rules in the context of ongoing trade negotiations.
The groups gave nearly identical statements that claim regulating PFAS as a class "is neither scientifically accurate nor appropriate," and they "remain committed to working with Canadian policymakers on targeted, science-based measures that protect health and the environment while maintaining access to essential technologies and products."
The impact of industry lobbying efforts are real, said Sydney Jordan, a Minnesota state legislator who played a key role in pushing through her state's stringent PFAS rules. For instance, her state backed down on some parts of its PFAS ban recently due to industry pressure, despite Democrats holding considerable power at the state level.
"[The] Republican Party just isn't interested in regulating PFAS, and sides with industry on this issue," she said.
Despite the American reversal on PFAS, Canada stands to benefit if it sticks to its planned PFAS rules as it tries to develop stronger trade links with the EU. The bloc and several member countries, such as France and Denmark, are moving fast on restrictions. If Canada wants to keep up, it needs to be quick, Alexandre said.
Moreover, an April poll by Abacus Data and Environmental Defense found about 86 per cent of Canadians support federal measures to phase PFAS out of consumer products. That support cuts across regions and political affiliation, the data show.