US Lobbying Firms Accused of Conflict Over PFAS 'Forever Chemicals'
A recent investigation has uncovered that several prominent US lobbying firms are simultaneously representing clients on opposing sides of the PFAS "forever chemicals" issue, sparking serious ethical concerns and allegations of conflicts of interest. This dual representation is believed to be impeding state-level efforts to regulate these hazardous substances, which are linked to severe health risks including cancer, birth defects, and immune system damage.
Review Highlights Widespread Dual Lobbying Practices
The non-profit organization F-Minus conducted a comprehensive review of lobbying records across six states, revealing numerous instances where firms advocated for both pro- and anti-PFAS regulation clients. PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widely used in consumer products and industrial applications, posing significant public health threats due to their persistence in the environment and human bodies.
One notable example involves the lobbying firm Holland & Knight, which represents the American Chemistry Council—a trade group for major PFAS manufacturers that aggressively opposes most regulations—while also lobbying for the American Cancer Society. In response to the Guardian, Holland & Knight defended its practices, stating it adheres to "rigorous ethics and conflict-review procedures" and arguing that the report's conclusions are based on a flawed premise that assumes advocacy on every policy issue for all clients.
Specific Cases Illustrate Ethical Dilemmas
In Oregon, lobbyist Rocky Dallum of Tonkon Torp lobbied against a state bill aimed at banning PFAS in many consumer goods, while simultaneously advocating for the Oregon Bioscience Association to secure funding for rare disease screenings in newborns. This is particularly concerning given that in-utero PFAS exposure is associated with decreased immunity, neurotoxic effects, and rare cancers.
New Jersey records show the Princeton Public Affairs Group lobbied both for and against a bill banning PFAS in certain consumer products, earning $96,000 from these activities. Similarly, in California, KP Public Affairs made nearly $275,000 lobbying on both sides of SB 682, a bill proposing a PFAS ban in cookware and other items, representing chemical makers opposed to the ban while also supporting it for the Western Municipal Water District.
Impact on Legislation and Public Health
James Browning, executive director of F-Minus and a former lobbyist, noted that industry and lobbyists often succeed in killing public health bills or pushing for "half measures," ensuring they get paid regardless of the outcome. He highlighted a "halo effect" where lobbying for public health organizations can mask conflicts when firms also represent chemical industry clients.
The F-Minus review identified 26 healthcare systems, 11 public school systems, 15 wildlife groups, and 132 local governments that share lobbying firms with PFAS makers or trade groups like the American Chemistry Council and Cookware Sustainability Alliance. These lobbyists operate across 36 states, complicating efforts to track their activities due to weak disclosure laws in most jurisdictions.
Legal and Reputational Implications
Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist with Public Citizen, explained that while state and federal laws do not prohibit firms from lobbying on both sides of an issue—a common practice—they can be held legally liable if there is cooperation or information sharing between opposing clients. He emphasized that such dual lobbying obfuscates firms' reputations as experts advocating specific positions.
The report calls for groups and governments to sever ties with conflicted firms, drawing parallels to past actions against tobacco industry lobbyists. It aims to pressure lobbying firms to choose sides, aligning either with public health advocates or the chemical industry.
Broader Context and Ongoing Efforts
This analysis comes amid a broader governmental push to curb PFAS pollution and exposure. However, intense lobbying by the chemical industry has stalled most PFAS legislation in recent years. For instance, in California, Governor Newsom vetoed the consumer product ban but approved a cleanup fund, a decision that critics argue will perpetuate water contamination while benefiting double-dipping lobbying firms.
In Pennsylvania, Holland & Knight represents both the city of Philadelphia and the American Chemistry Council, with the latter lobbying to preempt state PFAS rules. Meanwhile, in Maine, the Preti Flaherty firm is seeking exemptions for cookware from a PFAS ban while lobbying against a bill for health insurer coverage of blood testing, all while representing the Portland Water District in a lawsuit against PFAS manufacturers.
The report underscores the need for greater transparency and ethical standards in lobbying to protect public health from the dangers of PFAS forever chemicals.
