The US took decades to act against these toxic chemicals. India should not wait

This article was originally published in our weekly newsletter Slow Lane, which goes out exclusively to Scroll Members. If you would like to get perceptive pieces of reporting, opinion and analysis like this directly in your inbox every Saturday, become a Scroll Member or upgrade your membership today.

On September 3, the National Green Tribunal bench took up a matter to which the Indian government has not yet paid much attention.

The case originated from a study by the Indian Institute of Technology Madras, which analysed water samples collected in Chennai to determine the levels of a family of chemicals known as PFAS, an acronym for per- and polyfluroalkyl substances. Because they are very resistant to breaking down, PFAS are also known as “forever chemicals”.

This property makes them invaluable in the manufacture of a range of products that resist deterioration, including fire retardants, waterproof garments and non-stick cookware. It also makes them extremely harmful to health. A release by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency noted that “Exposure to PFAS has been linked to deadly cancers, impacts to the liver and heart, and immune and developmental damage to infants and children.”

The IIT Madras study found that the city’s water was contaminated with high levels of these chemicals. “From dump sites to groundwater, cookware to wastewater, these persistent chemicals have infiltrated every facet of the surroundings,” it stated.

The National Green Tribunal took suo moto notice of media reports about the study, and gave the central and Tamil Nadu pollution control boards till September 3 to “consider the study result and inform the parameters which have been prescribed and the remedial action which is proposed”.

But though the case is focused on Chennai, these chemicals have, in fact, spread widely across the country. Most people have over the years heard of the risks they carry – for instance when they are used in the manufacture of non-stick pans. But in the absence of efforts from the government to highlight and tackle the problem, few take it seriously today. Meanwhile, as a recent report noted, studies have shown they are present in women’s breast milk in Tamil Nadu and in Kolkata, in wells in Varanasi, in fish in the Ganga, and are even carried by the Indian monsoons into China. Where one finds them seems largely determined by where one looks.

More extensive research on the spread of these chemicals has been carried out abroad, and reveals a dire picture. One expert noted in the release by the United States’ Environmental Protection Agency that the “chemicals now contaminate virtually all Americans from birth”.

The country has recently intensified efforts to regulate the use and spread of PFAS. In April, the Environment Protection Agency announced legal limits to the levels in drinking water of certain PFAS. A range of organisations and agencies that are classified as “public water systems” will now have to enforce these limits. The Environment Protection Agency’s release noted that the rule would “reduce PFAS exposure for approximately 100 million people, prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses”.

Though such measures are welcome, they are nevertheless late, particularly given how long companies have known about the dangers of the chemicals.

PFAS were first developed in the 1930s and began to be used widely in the decades that followed. Companies such as Dupont and 3M, among the most significant contributors of PFAS to the environment, became aware that they were harmful not long after. Investigations by the journalist Sharon Lerner have revealed that 3M and Dupont knew about the proliferation and dangers of certain PFAS compounds since the 1970s. One story by Lerner describes C8, a PFAS compound, as “the tobacco of the chemical industry – a substance whose health effects were the subject of a decades-long corporate cover-up”.

In a story published in the New Yorker, Lerner spoke to former scientists at 3M to learn why the company’s researchers had kept their knowledge of the risks of these chemicals hidden. She found that research was often conducted in silos to ensure that few, if any people, could see the full picture. Some, such as Kris Hansen, who began to unearth evidence in the late 1990s of both the widespread use of the chemicals and their harmful effects found their efforts blocked, and their career paths diverted.

It took decades of research, activism, advocacy and journalism to build the political will to act against PFAS, and for that will to translate into actions, which are still in their early stages.

So where does India stand when it comes to PFAS substances?

The answer: very far behind. As one report noted, “No PFAS substances are regulated in the country.” In fact, India has even shown some reluctance to address the matter. The country became party in 2006 to the Stockholm Convention, whose aims include reducing the use of “persistent organic pollutants”. But although a commonly used PFAS compound, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, or PFOS, was added in 2009 to the list of substances strictly regulated by the convention, India has not yet signed on to that amendment.

The National Green Tribunal’s move to highlight the problem, then, is a welcome one. But it is unlikely to be enough. A news report about the September 3 hearing noted that a pollution control board official told the tribunal that there “is no standard for PFAS in drinking water by Bureau of Indian Standards”. The report also noted that the environment ministry was planning a survey on industries that manufacture the chemicals. The tribunal scheduled the next hearing of the case for December.

Truly meaningful and efficacious action can only come from the highest levels of the government. India does not need to replicate years of studies to prove that these substances are harmful to humans and the environment. It can focus on assessing the specific damage they do in India’s environmental and geographical context, and on understanding the extent of their spread in the country. The government must also devise strategies for regulating them, as well as for replacing them with non-toxic alternatives in the wide range of products in which they are used. The example of the United States shows that such efforts take years to evolve – India owes its citizens swift and decisive action.