Back in February, the State of Minnesota and 3M reached a settlement ending $5 billion lawsuit over perfluorochemicals, or PFCs that had made their way into groundwater in the East Metro. Attorney General Lori Swanson's office brought the lawsuit on the part of the state.
Now other states are considering "their own lawsuits over the so-called forever chemicals, part of the PFAS class," Politico's Kelsey Tamborrino reports in Inside 3M's lobbying fight, and the corporation and other chemical manufacturers have created a front page to assist in that effort:
Facing potentially billions in financial liability for toxic pollution linked to two of its nonstick and water repellent chemicals, industrial giant 3M is putting its muscle into lobbying in Washington and supporting state attorneys generals in a strategy some say is reminiscent of tobacco industry tactics. At issue is contamination from two chemicals, called PFOA and PFOS, that's turned up in water sources in more than 1,500 U.S. communities, Pro's Annie Snider reports this morning.
For a sense of scale, 3M reached $850 million in a single settlement with the state of Minnesota to cover the damage the chemicals caused to the state's drinking water. But other states are now pursing their own lawsuits over the so-called forever chemicals, part of the PFAS class, that have been used for decades in products ranging from firefighting foam to 3M's signature Scotchgard.
Central to the company's effort to fend off further government action is the Responsible Science Policy Coalition, a new industry advocacy group backed by 3M that entered into the public debate this summer, arguing that the chemicals don't pose the health threat that multiple government agencies have warned about, Annie reports. Briefing materials from the coalition obtained by POLITICO cite findings from industry-backed studies in a manner that an independent expert called, "disingenuous," for instance, comparing levels of the chemicals in humans' blood with the levels where they were found to harm animals, without accounting for the differences in their bodies.
Michael Halpern, deputy director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the strategy a classic industry approach. "The goal is to stave off regulation by questioning the science," Halpern said. He likened the new industry group to a similarly named organization, the Advancement of Sound Science Coalition, that the tobacco industry used in the early 1990s to attack EPA's findings on secondhand smoke. Read the story (if you have a subscriber).
Halpern scooped Politico with September's article, What is the Responsible Science Policy Coalition? Here Are Some Clues. The clues:
An interesting new group has popped up called the Responsible Science Policy Coalition (RSPC) that seems to have a significant interest in chemical safety policy. Are they legitimate? As Congress prepares for another hearing into the dangers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, it’s worth digging into who these folks might be.
PFAS have been in the news quite a bit recently because the White House was caught censoring a report from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) on the health effects of PFAS exposure. These chemicals are widely used in products ranging from nonstick cookware to water-repellant fabrics, and they are especially prevalent in the water at military bases due to their use in firefighting foam. Bipartisan outrage about the censorship was swift and sustained, and the report was released in June. A new UCS analysis shows that many military bases have potentially unsafe levels of PFAS in drinking water.
In July, the Responsible Science Policy Coalition surfaced at a meeting of the Council of Western Attorneys General where they expressed being “eager to help your state with your issues.” In their presentation to the attorneys general, the RSPC argued that there are “lots of problems with existing PFAS studies” and that these studies “don’t show the strength of association needed to support causation.”
The RSPC also submitted a comment on the ATSDR draft toxicology assessment that extensively detailed why, in their view, ATSDR’s scientific approach was sub-par.
Who is supporting the RSPC?
Where, then, did the Responsible Science Policy Coalition come from, and why do they care so much about PFAS? Here’s what we know. According to the PowerPoint presentation, RSPC is a new coalition made up of 3M, Johnson Controls, and unnamed other companies.
The inclusion of 3M is particularly notable because the company spent decades hiding the science about the dangers of PFAS. 3M used such chemicals in many highly-used products including Scotchgard and firefighting foam. According to the Intercept:
A lawsuit filed by Minnesota against 3M, the company that first developed and sold PFOS and PFOA, the two best-known PFAS compounds, has revealed that the company knew that these chemicals were accumulating in people’s blood for more than 40 years. …The company even had evidence back then of the compounds’ effects on the immune system…
The suit, which the Minnesota attorney general filed in 2010, charges that 3M polluted groundwater with PFAS compounds and “knew or should have known” that these chemicals harm human health and the environment, and “result in injury, destruction, and loss of natural resources of the State.” The complaint argues that 3M “acted with a deliberate disregard for the high risk of injury to the citizens and wildlife of Minnesota.” 3M settled the suit for $850 million in February, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office released a large set of documents…detailing what 3M knew about the chemicals’ harms.
And you thought all they made was Post-its and tape!
RSPC seems to be led by Jonathan Glendill and James Votaw. Glenhill is the president of the Policy Navigation Group, whose list of past and present clients is dominated by industry groups. Votaw is a lawyer for Keller and Heckman; the address given for RSPC is the address of Keller and Heckman’s DC offices. Votaw has signed the three comments from RSPC on the ATSDR study (the first two were extension requests). Votaw’s practice concentrates on environmental and health and safety regulation, including chemicals and pesticides.
Keller and Heckman’s chemicals practice is more circumspect, but their pesticides practice is described in part as “[helping] clients defend existing markets worldwide against governmental pressure and environmentalist activism.” They can help companies “defend against an EPA enforcement action” and “secure successful tolerance reassessments.”
A name like the Responsible Science Policy Coalition makes insinuations of course—that most people are pulling numbers out of thin air and pursuing haphazard or irresponsible science policy, and we really need some adults in the room. . . .
Less charitably, groups like RSPC are known as front groups. Disguised by innocuous-sounding names and with a veneer of independence, they principally exist to create doubt and confusion about the state of the science to avoid regulation of the products their members create. Plenty of industries have them. The American Council on Science and Health has long conducted purportedly independent science that was in fact funded by corporate interests. The Groundwater Protection Council fights federal regulation of fracking. The Western States Petroleum Association, the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United States, was found in 2014 to be running at least sixteen different front groups in order to undermine forward-looking policies like California’s proposal to place transportation fuels under the state’s carbon cap.
Could the Responsible Science Policy Coalition meet its stated goal to “accelerate research and promote best practices and best available science in policy decisions?” Perhaps. But those looking to RSPC for advice should be wary of the fact that so far, it seems to exist to encourage more relaxed regulation of PFAS chemicals – a decision that is worth a lot of money to the organization’s key members.
Minnesota isn't part of the Conference of Western Attorneys General. But if the Responsible Science Policy Coalition comes calling to Minnesota's new attorney general "eager to help your state with your issues," like 3M's pollution, Bluestem suspects that the People's Attorney may use caution instead.
We also suspect that Minnesota House committee heads--however those committees are structured and chaired--may also be a bit skeptical with the front group.
Screengrab: From the PowerPoint presentation RSPC, a new coalition made up of 3M, Johnson Controls, and unnamed other companies, presented at a meeting of the Conference of Western Attorneys General. RSPC is here to help.
If you appreciate our posts and original analysis, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post. Those wishing to make a small ongoing monthly contribution should click on the paypal subscription button.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email sally.jo.sorensen@gmail.com as recipient.
Comments