Public health advocates are optimistic that a Kamala Harris win in the November presidential election in the US would lead to further regulation of PFAS toxic “forever chemicals”, on which the Biden administration has already taken unprecedented regulatory action.

In part that is based on past actions. Last year, Harris’s running mate, the Minnesota governor, Tim Walz, signed bold legislation prohibiting the use of toxic PFAS across a range of common consumer goods from menstrual products to food packaging – a measure that is considered by public health advocates to be among the “strongest bans in the world”.

Walz worked closely with victims of PFAS pollution as the legislation moved, said Sarah Doll, director of Safer States, which advocates for state-level regulations on toxic chemicals. “He has lived experience with the families … and just having that could bring a deeper understanding of the complexities and the challenges that we face,” Doll said.

The White House

The White House in Washington DC at summer day.

PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down, and can accumulate in humans and the environment. The chemicals are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.

Though PFAS are added to thousands of consumer products, the US federal government has done little to regulate how they are used. Instead, states in recent years have begun enacting their own bans on PFAS in consumer goods, and Minnesota’s 2023 law prohibits the chemicals in 13 product categories including clothing, children’s items and cookware.

Walz drew praise as a national leader on the issue in part for signing the bill despite intense opposition from 3M, one of the world’s largest corporations and PFAS producers, which is headquartered in Minnesota.

However, some environmental groups have raised concerns about gray areas in the law’s language that regulators implementing the rules must interpret. It requires the state to focus on enforcement of the most toxic of 23,000 compounds defined as PFAS by the law, which is broader than the federal definition.

Strong toxicological profiles only exist for a very limited number of compounds. That could create a situation in which dangerous new PFAS are ignored, but Doll said there was always some uncertainty in the implementation of toxic chemical laws.

“There is nothing I heard or saw or read in this that is a dagger that is going to undermine the potential for this to be an effective, strong law,” Doll said. She added Walz also signed legislation restricting the use of other toxic chemicals, like flame retardants.

Harris, meanwhile, has drawn wide praise from environmental groups for taking on big oil. As California’s attorney general, she pursued criminal charges against some of that industry’s polluters and defeated an Obama administration proposal to allow fracking off the coast, among other bold steps.

The Center for Environmental Health in Oakland, California, praised her for helping lead opposition in 2013 to an overhaul of the federal Toxic Substances Control Act pushed by the chemical industry. It was ultimately defeated and a stronger version rewritten and passed several years later.

However, Harris drew criticism from some environmental groups for declining to take action on the Kettleman Hills hazardous waste facility, which had a decades-long history of toxic spills in a rural community of color. An EPA investigation later determined the facility and state had violated nearby residents’ civil rights.

Read more.