the federal government has tried to regulate this toxic chemical compound

In recent years, as the federal government has tried to regulate this toxic chemical compound, the nation’s top PFAS manufacturers have launched lobbying and campaign donations.

The Guardian’s analysis of campaign financial records found that because lawmakers proposed more than 100 new regulations in 2019 and 2020, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established strong new restrictions on spending on PFAS issues A substantial increase. Observers said the results were clear: industry allies in Congress vetoed almost all PFAS legislation, and Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stifled, downplayed or delayed new regulations that never took effect.

Lingling and Tom Perkins.

I tested my tap water, household products and cats for "permanent chemicals"

Since Biden's Environmental Protection Agency has pushed forward restrictive measures opposed by the industry, the Democratic Party has promised to reintroduce failed legislation. Billions of dollars in fiscal revenue are at risk, and expenditures are expected to remain high during this legislative cycle. Chemours, one of the world's largest PFAS manufacturers, reported a profit of approximately US$5 billion in fiscal year 2020, of which the profit of fluorochemicals was approximately US$2.2 billion.

Erik Olson, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said: “They treat these chemicals as profit centers and don’t want to give up this product. They oppose any reduction in their income. Regulations." Olsen and the PFAS manufacturer’s position is contrary.

PFAS, also known as perfluoroalkyl substances and polyfluoroalkyl substances, is a category containing 4,500 fluorine compounds. For decades, they have been used to manufacture thousands of products for waterproofing and antifouling. They are becoming more and more common in the environment and the human body because they cannot be decomposed naturally. They are closely related to cancer, liver disease, kidney disease, birth defects and a series of other serious health problems.

According to statistics from the 7 largest PFAS producers and their industry trade organizations, between 2019 and 2020, federal political spending will be at least $61 million, most of which is used to lobby Congress and the Trump administration, rather than campaign donations.

In the United States, loose campaign finance rules make it difficult to know exactly how much lobbying money chemical companies spent on PFAS proposals, and who they lobbied in Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency.

The main strategy of industry lobbyists is to adopt the tactics of tobacco and oil lobbyists

However, financial records generally show that the industry is focused on rejecting multiple proposals that could have forced them to pay the astronomical cost of cleaning up widespread PFAS pollution. In other cases, the proposed bills do not pose a serious threat to companies, and the lobbying costs of these bills are mainly "lobbyists are unscrupulous in order to prove their existence." Scott Faber said. The organization advocates stricter supervision.

Olsen said that the main strategy used by industry lobbyists is a complex strategy extracted from the strategies of tobacco and oil lobbyists, with the goal of "creating doubts" on the clear science of demonstrating the health threats of chemicals. So far, these strategies have successfully delayed the introduction of new regulations.

He said: "The longer they can extend, the longer they can continue to make money."

"Everything is slowalked"

It is estimated that the drinking water of more than 100 million people contains toxic PFAS and contaminates the blood of 98% of Americans. Although the industry has been aware of the harm this chemical substance causes to the environment and humans for decades, they continue to market PFAS. Despite this, most of the billions of dollars in cleanup costs fall on the American public.

The regulations proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency and Congress at the previous session largely shifted the burden of costs to industry, but chemical companies strongly opposed these proposals and mobilized their lobbyists.

Michigan State Representative Debbie Dingle said: "This is because (these regulations) require them to spend money." She proposed amendments to the 2019 PFAS operation and last year's National Defense Authorization Act, which combined PFOA and PFOS. The two most widely used PFAS compounds are classified as hazardous substances under the Super Fund Act. Doing so may make PFAS manufacturers responsible for the pollution and may force them to bear clean-up costs.

Lobbying records show that PFAS manufacturers such as Chemours, 3M, DuPont, Daikin, Arkema, Solvay, and the American Chemistry Council sent lobbyists to Congress during the bill’s debate and contributed to key members of Congressional committees.