Can the removal of two little carbon atoms turn a toxic chemical into one that's safe for use every day, in virtually every home and fast food joint in the country?
That's what industry would like you to believe. They've agreed to phase out PFOA -- sometimes called C8 for its 8 carbon atoms -- by 2015. Apparently they're taking the tortoise approach, but it's still an important step, since PFOA is persistent in the environment and associated with a host of ill health effects.
But their proposed replacement chemical, PFHxA, can also be called C6 for its 6 carbon atoms. An industry representative, speaking to the Health Committee of the California State Senate, called PFHxA "green chemistry" and described "effective C6 based compounds whose breakdown products are much, much less toxic and don’t have the same persistence issues that PFOA and some of the C8s have." In virtually the same breath, he denied that PFOA has any health effects. These industry guys sure don't make it easy to trust them.
Is C6 really any safer? In a new report, EWG analysts Olga V. Naidenko and Renee Sharp say that there's no evidence it is. C6 and C8 are both perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs), which are notoriously persistent in the environment. C6 may be as much as 5 times more toxic to marine life. On top of that, EWG's cord blood tests show that C6 makes it past the placenta to contaminate babies before they're even born.
But what's most troubling about industry's rush to replace PFOA/C8 with the remarkably similar PFHxA/C6 is the absolute dearth of information about the potential health effects of C6. The chemical industry is trying to replace one toxic chemical with another that may be just as toxic -- and calling it green chemistry. Write Naidenko and Sharp, "PFOA is so remarkably persistent in the environment and broadly toxic to living organisms that using it as a bar against which to judge "green chemistry" is like calling anything under 200 miles per hour a safe speed limit."
What you should know:
- There are ways to avoid PFOA, PFHxA and other PFCs.
- A bill being considered in California would ban C8 and C6 in food packaging.
- According to an EWG analysis, industry's voluntary phaseout of C8 isn't working.
- Despite loads of evidence to the contrary, DuPont's reps continue to claim that C8 has no effect on human health.
Photo by Aim and Shoot.