Canada will add PFAS, which are linked to cancer and other health problems, to toxic substances list
Move does not ban PFAS, but starts a process to restrict them in various consumer and industrial products
The federal government is moving to add PFAS, a class of thousands of chemicals used in a wide range of products from food containers to clothing, to the official list of toxic substances, in light of growing scientific and public concern about the substances in Canada and around the world.
PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are man-made chemicals used for their water and heat resistant properties. They are widely used in many everyday products — such as packaging, cosmetics and textiles — along with industrial uses like water-repellent coatings and firefighting foam.
"What we're doing is unprecedented, that we would use the Canadian Environmental Protection Act to not look at one substance... but to look at the entire family [of chemicals]. It's never been done before," said Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault in Montreal.
Often referred to as "forever chemicals," PFAS have also increasingly been linked to human health problems, such as increasing cancer risk and causing reproductive issues. The same qualities that make them useful also make them very persistent in the environment, accumulating in water sources, animals and eventually human bodies.
What does the 'toxic' designation lead to?
The government released its final State of PFAS report, which details where and how the chemicals are used in Canada and their impact on people and health.
Today's announcement will not immediately ban any new PFAS, but it will start a process to restrict them in the future. The government has started a 60-day consultation period required before adding PFAS to the toxic substances list.
"Once that listing is finalized, then the government can move ahead with regulations. And those would involve removing [PFAS] from products, removing it for things like firefighting foam, removing it from industrial uses," said Elaine MacDonald, health communities director at the environmental law charity Ecojustice.
"And the plan they laid out today really doesn't have a lot of timelines around what that might look like. So we will be pushing for them to do it as quickly as possible."
First up, the government says it will look at restricting PFAS in firefighting foams. Then, it will look at PFAS in cosmetics, non-prescription drugs, food packaging, textiles and certain building materials, cleaning products and waxes and polishes.
Starting with firefighting foams is particularly important, according to Miriam Diamond, a leading PFAS researcher and professor at the University of Toronto.
"Millions of people around the globe are drinking PFAS-contaminated water because of the use of PFAS-containing aqueous firefighting foam. It's most acute around airports, around military bases, around locations where there have been massive fires," Diamond said.
"Other places in the world are moving away from it and are moving away from it quickly."
Diamond's lab has conducted research on PFAS being found in takeout containers, cosmetics and other products. She said given what's already known about the spread and impacts of PFAS, the government needs to move much faster than the current phased plan.
"In the briefing today, government officials mentioned cosmetics, food packaging and textiles. Actually, they happen to be the three areas in which we've done work — on PFAS in Canadian cosmetics, food packaging and in textiles," she said.
"The good news about our work was that half of those products didn't contain PFAS. So there are alternatives or it's not needed. Hence the government could be enacting restrictions right away on those products.There is no need for a Phase 2 in my eyes."
What our other countries doing on PFAS?
Addressing the widespread use of these chemicals has become a global concern because of just how much of the substances humans have already been exposed to.
Researchers have found types of PFAS in fish caught from water bodies across North America; in the air, rain and water of the Great Lakes; in makeup, paper-based food packaging, feminine hygiene products; and clothing, such as school uniforms, rain jackets and children's winter gloves.
As a result, almost all Canadians and Americans have PFAS in their bodies.
"It's so ubiquitous in our economy. It is in so many different products," MacDonald said.
"It's going to take a long time to figure out how to remove it from everything."
The new proposals allow for exemptions for certain PFAS based on whether there are feasible and cost-effective alternatives. That's similar to the European Union, which proposed a ban on the use of PFAS in consumer products, with possible exemptions for some industrial uses.
The Chemistry Industry Association of Canada released a statement saying PFAS are "critical to a modern way of life," and that in "many cases there are no known alternatives to these substances."
In the U.S., efforts to regulate the chemicals have suffered a setback. President Donald Trump's new administration has withdrawn proposed PFAS discharge limits for industries. But states are taking their own actions.
Over half of U.S. states have taken legal action against PFAS manufacturers and users. Many states have passed legislation restricting PFAS in various products and introducing limits for the substances in drinking water.
"It is true that the U.S. administration is walking back on some of those commitments. But the good news is that there are a number of U.S. states that are maintaining their laws and regulations on these substances," Guilbeault said, adding that he will work with those states and other countries on a common approach to tackling PFAS.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
