A group of scientists is trying to combat a controversial effort to narrow the international definition of "forever chemicals." 

What's happening?

A team of internationally renowned experts in per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are calling out individuals within the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, or IUPAC, specifically.

Last year, IUPAC authored a paper attempting to limit the definition, citing "a balance among scientific rigour, economic considerations, and social perspectives for effective PFAS regulation." However, the experts defending the current parameters of PFAS governmental regulation believe the argument cited in the paper is a politically and economically motivated move.

"They are mixing up the chemical definition of PFAS with a regulatory definition of PFAS," Professor Ian Cousins from the University of Stockholm said to the Guardian. "The OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] definition was not intended to be a regulatory definition … the confusion it causes will also be damaging and I suspect that causing confusion is one of their objectives."

Why is this attempt at reclassifying PFAS concerning?

PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals used in a variety of applications, from non-stick cookware to firefighting foams. The qualities that make them useful — their resistance to oil, water, and stains — also make them highly toxic to the environment since they don't decompose quickly and are generally not handled well by human or animal bodies.

In the U.S., several states are cracking down on the use of PFAS in common items like clothing and cleaning items due to the rampant health and environmental concerns they pose. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the "forever chemicals" are linked to fertility issues, cancers, autoimmune disorders, and several other health issues.

Even with these measures in place, some experts believe the regulations in place aren't enough due to the sheer number of chemicals that qualify. Thousands of chemicals can be considered PFAS, which pose many opportunities for those with a similar mindset of the IUPAC chemists to sidestep existing legislation.

What's being done about PFAS regulation in the wake of this paper?

The rejection of this paper by world-renowned scientists is a damning move for its legitimacy, particularly when the experts at play are well-versed in how this type of strategy plays out in legislation.

"Past experience has shown that confusion over the definition of harmful contaminants can cause substantial delays in their scrutiny and regulation," Professor Alex Ford from the University of Portsmouth explained.

That being said, the team does note that the OECD definition for PFAS does have room for exceptions, as long as they are substantiated in scientific fact and don't undermine the thesis of its meaning.

"Justified exemptions can be made … without changing the general definition of what constitutes a Pfas," the team of scientists concluded.

Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home? Majorly 😥 Sometimes 😟 Not really 😐 I don't know enough about them 🤷 Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.

Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.