> Inhance says the EPA’s rule does not apply to its operations because its fluorination process has been in continuous use since 1983. Uses that have been ongoing since before the EPA proposed the rule in 2015 are exempt. The firm says it “will pursue all legal options to protect its customers, suppliers, and employees and to ensure the continued operations of this environmentally critical technology.”
I love this argument. "We've been poisoning people for a very long time so we should be allowed to keep poisoning people without consequence and will fight you in court to protect our ability to poison people indefinitely!"
I agree with you that this is horrible. Devil's advocate- should the rule then not have excluded the exemption? I understand the company crying foul if they've been complying with rule as it's written. I know that the exceptions exist both for operational and political reasons. Can the EPA pass a new rule that includes no exemptions? Also, maybe exemptions should expire or be re-evaluated every n years.
If the EPA could instantly ban chemicals and disable specific verticals then it would be used as a weapon. Just lobby against your competition's process, and kill them the moment the regulation is enacted. Regulations should be strong, but hard won.
Also PFAS are legitimately useful in many industrial contexts. But maybe we shouldn't be using them in places like food packaging that people reheat in microwaves.
> The EPA first became aware of PFAS impurities created by Inhance’s fluorination process in 2020 after PFAS-tainted mosquitocide contaminated a Massachusetts drinking water supply. The agency determined that PFOA had leached into the mosquitocide from fluorinated HDPE containers treated by Inhance.
is this mainly used for weird chemical containers for industry or something? i can't imagine too many containers in the grocery store needing to be fluorinated HDPE
edit: just noticed that "2.2 Kg" is used twice in the EPA release [0]...that's either a pretty weird unit of measurement or an error of some kind since 1 kg = 2.2 lb
So many things used to be covered in wax before plastics and PFA coatings took over. From rain coats to butcher's paper. The wax versions still exist, but they're often a lot more expensive than the PFA or plastic lined versions.
In my fantasy world these were all covered in beeswax, but I doubt there's enough beeswax for all of those applicatins. I don't suppose anyone knows what the wax is/was made of, and whether it had any health concerns as well?
I don't think I've ever seen a wax takeout container. Prior to the current wave of "compostable" containers, takeout containers were either something non-paper backed (eg. styrofoam or plastic), or something that resembled a paper cup (which uses plastic not wax, because wax gets melted by hot food/drinks).
Still a thing, but no longer the default. Weird too - wax paper cups were fine. I assume, just more expensive to make. Now it's the red plastic solo cups which are the default.
They look nice and produce a pleasant, warm light; I would also guess many people aren't aware of their impact on air quality. Surprisingly, different people have different opinions about what matters in a given situation.
"Why not require companies that use fluorinated plastic containers to print a large warning label on them informing consumers of the danger like we do with cigarettes/tobacco? If the EPA can't force their hand, maybe we can try to change consumer behavior."
and i have to admit, that was my very own reaction when i saw this press release
Inhance claims their containers are recyclable, so a number of them probably do get recycled into new HDPE containers. How do you warn consumers about this without turning them off of all recycled plastics?
It's plausible that broad concern about recycled plastics would be valid.
This study[1] found that the recycled plastics analyzed were fairly toxic. I recall another that found the same for recycled synthetic clothing, but I was unable to find a reference.
that's a fair point, but if it was up to me i'd be happy to see labeling on the specifically fluorinated containers. or maybe it's not even necessary to worry about because the containers are just as unhealthy as all the other containers?
I hope these containers weren't/aren't labeled with a #2 recycle code.
> The company claims the resulting containers are fully recyclable.
But crap, they probably are. Which means everyone using recycled HDPE is potentially exposed to PFAS leachates as well.
> EPA’s order that it has modified its fluorination process over the past 2 years, resulting in a more-than-90% decrease in PFAS impurities. PFAS are undetectable in nearly all of its fluorinated plastic packaging, the company says.
But are they undetectable following the recycling process? Are new PFAS impurities formed in this process?
Fortunately even the plastic those people designate for recycling is not in fact recycled in the overwhelming number of cases ([0] cites a rate of ~8% dropping to ~5% in 2021).
(/s? I think? I don’t know, this whole domain of waste stream problems seems like bouncing from one sad state of affairs to another)
Adorably, we count exporting the plastics to dump in third countries as “recycling” it, including it as part of that single-digit figure.
Probably not. The line between fluorinated and nonflourinated is very clear. For more standard organic molecules like BPA small changes can actually change bio activity significantly.
Yes, PFAS and PFOA is a vast array of chemicals. My understanding is the EPA can only target specific chemicals for regulation. Therefore it is always cat and mouse when a new chain is added to change the chemical slightly in shape, but not function.
PFAS are a class of chemicals, not specific molecules. Depending on your database there are thousands or millions of them. Broadly they are fluorinated carbon chains of an arbitrary length. They are analogous to oils and fatty acids with Fluorine instead of Hydrogen. Banning them bans a wide arrange of industrial processes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_subst...
PFOA is a specific chemical, and probably one of the most widely used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid. It could be replaced by something like ADONA. So there is the cat and mouse game. But by banning PFAS in general, you can ban pretty much all fluorinated chemistry from consumer goods.
Here what the EPA is doing is banning impurities. Any chemical reaction will have some side products, especially organic chemistry, which are labeled as impurities. No matter the exact fluorinated chemical used in the reaction, it will produce some amount of PFAS as side products. By targeting the PFAS impurities, they don't have to ban a specific input chemical, they can ban large classes of chemicals that produce similar impurities.
Environmental groups involved in the case welcome the EPA’s decision to essentially ban Inhance’s fluorination process.
Well, from what I've read, the EPA has been gutted intentionally for quite a while, so that is by design.
Starve the beast is a strategy that is currently still in use in the US.
I love this argument. "We've been poisoning people for a very long time so we should be allowed to keep poisoning people without consequence and will fight you in court to protect our ability to poison people indefinitely!"