US Agency Found PFOS and Other Types of PFAS in Pesticides but Failed to Disclose Those Results, Watchdog Group Alleges
Documents obtained from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicate that the agency may have presented false information to the public about testing for harmful contaminants in pesticides. These allegations are being made by a watchdog group and a former EPA research fellow.
The claims come almost a year after the EPA issued a May 2023 press release stating that the agency found no per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in samples of certain insecticide products. This press release contradicted a published study by the former EPA researcher, who reported finding PFAS in the same pesticide products.
PFAS contamination is a significant concern in environmental and public health circles because certain types of PFAS are hazardous to human health. Governments and public health advocates are pushing to limit exposure to these chemicals, making accurate testing for PFAS contamination crucial for regulating exposure.
The allegations that the EPA incorrectly reported some PFAS test results were made by the nonprofit group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), led by former EPA employees. The PEER director of scientific policy, Kyla Bennett, said that the organization obtained pesticide product testing data from the EPA through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The documents showed that the agency had indeed found PFAS in the tested products, directly contradicting the press release the agency had issued.
“It’s pretty outrageous,” said Bennett. “You don’t get to just ignore the stuff that doesn’t support your hypothesis. That is not science. That is corruption. I can only think that they were getting pressure from pesticide companies.”
Joining the allegations is environmental toxicologist Steven Lasee, who authored the 2022 study that the EPA challenged. Lasee is a consultant for state and federal government agencies on PFAS contamination projects and was a research fellow for the EPA’s office of research and development from February 2021 to February 2023.
The EPA declined to comment, saying, “because these issues relate to a pending formal complaint process, EPA has no further information to provide.” However, in past statements, the agency has presented itself as taking a tough stand on PFAS contamination. The agency recently finalized drinking water limits for PFAS and is classifying two types of PFAS as hazardous substances. EPA administrator Michael Regan has publicly stated that the adverse health effects of PFAS “can devastate families.”
The EPA has also recognized the potential for PFAS contamination of pesticides, focusing on pesticides stored in fluorinated high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic containers. Last year, the agency ordered a prominent manufacturer to stop using PFAS chemicals when producing plastic containers for pesticides and other products.
PFAS chemicals have been used by various industries since the 1940s for electronics manufacturing, oil recovery, paints, fire-fighting foams, cleaning products, and non-stick cookware. Some types of PFAS have been linked to cancer, immune system damage, birth defects, delayed development in children, and other health problems.
In challenging the EPA over the testing issue, PEER submitted a letter demanding a correction of the EPA’s public statement about the pesticide product analyses and a retraction of the agency’s research memo on the matter. PEER alleges that as the EPA sought to refute Lasee’s study findings, the agency engaged in “egregious” misconduct and is “guilty of numerous departures from both accepted scientific and ethical practices.” The agency “provided misinformation to a national audience and intentionally damaged Dr. Lasee,” the PEER complaint alleges.
The Lasee study that sparked the dispute was published in November 2022 in the Journal of Hazardous Materials Letters. The study reported detecting a very harmful type of PFAS known as perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) in six out of ten insecticides used in cotton fields and in growing other crops, posing a contamination threat to agricultural areas.
The EPA’s response, released six months later, said the agency obtained samples of the same pesticide products from Lasee and purchased additional products with the same registration numbers for analysis. Unlike Lasee’s results, EPA scientists found no detectable levels of PFOS or any of the 28 additional PFAS screened for, claiming their equipment and methodology were superior.
These findings raised questions about the validity of the testing, according to Lasee and PEER. One concern was that the EPA report did not identify any of the “matrix spike” of PFOS, which was intentionally added to the samples before analysis. Matrix spikes are commonly used in analytical chemistry as a quality control measure to evaluate an analytical method’s performance. Lasee had not informed the agency of the matrix spike, but accurate methods should have detected it.
Numerous other flaws and deviations from scientific norms were observed in the EPA’s testing analyses, according to the PEER complaint. Another significant concern was that while the EPA publicly disclosed the results of two tests conducted on the pesticide product samples, internal documents showed the agency had conducted four tests. The documents revealed that one of the tests did find evidence of PFOS and other types of PFAS, which were not introduced as a matrix spike.
PEER said it is unclear why the EPA did not report the positive findings of PFAS in pesticides. Regardless, the “presence of PFAS in pesticides points to an appalling regulatory breakdown by EPA,” PEER states in its complaint.
In a letter to PEER responding to some of the concerns raised, EPA division director Anne Overstreet said the agency “remains confident in our findings” and that the agency’s scientists “maintained scientific integrity and is in compliance with established good laboratory practices.”
Amid the uproar over his paper and the subsequent EPA testing, Lasee sought to reproduce his initial results but was unable to do so. This created enough doubt about his methodology that he sought to retract his paper. Now, after seeing the EPA’s internal testing data showing the agency did find PFOS and other types of PFAS in pesticides but failed to disclose those results, he has a new level of doubt – over the credibility of the agency.
“When you cherrypick data, you can make it say whatever you want it to say,” Lasee said.
Harm and Injury from PFAS in Pesticides
Exposure to PFAS chemicals can have devastating health effects. These chemicals have been linked to various severe health issues, including cancer, immune system damage, birth defects, and delayed development in children. The widespread use of PFAS in pesticides poses a significant risk to agricultural workers, consumers, and the general public. These toxic substances can contaminate soil and water, leading to long-term environmental and health consequences.
Victims harmed by PFAS exposure may file a lawsuit seeking damages for their injuries. The lawsuit process typically involves several stages, including filing a complaint, discovery, settlement negotiations, and, if necessary, trial. Each step in this process requires careful legal navigation to ensure that victims’ rights are protected and that they receive fair compensation for their injuries.
Having an experienced attorney is crucial in handling a product liability lawsuit. Attorneys can help gather evidence, navigate complex legal procedures, and advocate on behalf of the victims. They can also negotiate with manufacturers and insurers to secure a fair settlement or, if needed, represent the victims in court. The legal expertise and support of an attorney can make a significant difference in the outcome of a case, ensuring that victims receive the compensation they deserve.
Damages recovered in a product liability lawsuit concerning PFAS exposure can include medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and punitive damages. These damages aim to compensate the victims for their losses and hold the responsible parties accountable for their actions. Given the complexity and high stakes of such cases, legal representation is essential to achieving a favorable outcome.
.svg){kind=small}
.avif)
.avif)