80 years – that’s how long it took for the world to fully grasp the insidious threat posed by “forever chemicals,” a class of substances now found in the bloodstreams of nearly every human on Earth. While the invention of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in 1938 ushered in an era of stain-resistant fabrics, non-stick cookware, and advanced technologies, a decades-long cover-up, meticulously detailed in Mariah Blake’s forthcoming book, "They Poisoned the World," reveals a deliberate downplaying of their toxicity and environmental persistence. Follow the money, and the trail leads directly to DuPont and 3M, the two companies that initially profited from PFAS production and, according to Blake’s reporting, actively suppressed evidence of their harm.
The Manhattan Project's Unintended Legacy
The story’s origins are surprisingly rooted in national security. Blake explains that PFAS weren't initially intended for commercial use; their first major application was during the Manhattan Project, the U.S. government’s effort to develop the atomic bomb. Physicists and chemists working on the project developed various methods to produce PFAS, leading to mass production as early as 1943. This early production wasn't without warning signs. Farmers downstream from these plants reported devastating impacts on their livestock and crops, prompting an investigation that revealed the chemicals’ toxicity and accumulation in the food chain. However, Manhattan Project officials intervened to halt a potential ban on contaminated produce, a decision that effectively delayed public awareness by half a century. This intervention highlights a critical tension: the prioritization of wartime objectives over public health and environmental safety, a pattern that would repeat itself for decades.
Based on the original Live Science report.
DuPont and 3M: Knowing the Risks, Ignoring the Consequences
Following World War II, Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. (3M) acquired patents for PFAS production, leading to the widespread commercialization of products like Scotchgard and Teflon. Crucially, Blake’s research demonstrates that both DuPont and 3M were aware of the dangers of PFAS as early as the 1960s. Internal studies revealed the chemicals’ persistence in the environment and their accumulation in human bloodstreams. By the 1970s, alarming links emerged between PFAS exposure and serious health issues, including kidney cancer, prostate cancer, leukemia, and birth defects. Yet, instead of alerting the public or regulators, DuPont reportedly shut down studies and continued exposing workers and the public to these chemicals. The company’s rationale, according to Blake, was a cold calculation: the cost of installing filtration systems to prevent PFAS release would be less than the potential liability from not doing so.
The Shifting Landscape of PFAS Regulation
The current regulatory framework in the United States, which grandfathered in existing chemicals, further complicated matters. This allowed companies to continue producing and using PFAS without rigorous safety testing. While the European Union is considering a class-wide ban on PFAS, the U.S. has historically regulated them individually, a strategy that Blake argues is ineffective given the sheer number of PFAS compounds – approximately 15,000. The recent actions by some U.S. states to ban entire classes of PFAS, with exceptions for essential uses, represent a potential shift towards a more proactive regulatory approach. However, the ongoing efforts by industry lobbyists to weaken these regulations underscore the persistent challenges in effectively addressing the PFAS crisis.
What this means for your wallet:
The implications extend far beyond environmental concerns. The cost of PFAS remediation is already staggering, with communities spending millions, even billions, on filtration systems. The potential for increased healthcare costs associated with PFAS-related illnesses is also significant. Investors should be wary of companies heavily reliant on PFAS, as increasing regulatory scrutiny and potential litigation could negatively impact their financial performance. Consumers should be aware that PFAS are ubiquitous in everyday products, and while completely avoiding them is nearly impossible, choosing products marketed as PFAS-free and advocating for stricter regulations can help mitigate exposure. The question now is whether the EPA will follow the lead of states and adopt a class-wide ban, or if the chemical industry will continue to delay meaningful action, leaving the burden of cleanup and healthcare costs to fall on individuals and communities.
