Switch off the editor’s digest free of charge
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
It has all of a toxic controversy. Growing evidence indicates that the molecules-in everyday objects such as cosmetics, non-stick pans and water acceptance clothing-to-do to build the disadvantage of both in the environment and body.
Last year, the chemical organization has announced that a panel would check again, such as the chemicals, which are known as per- and polyfluoralkyl substances or PFAs. This has the definition of some researchers who suspect that rethinking, by the international union of pure and applied chemistry, is restricted and restricted some chemicals from regulatory hooks forever. The current definition that protest is based on science and works well; The new initiative, they argue, is motivated by political or economic considerations. Rather as a science.
Your objections deserve a hearing. When presenting its reasons for the redefinition of a class of chemicals that have existed for decades, the chemical union mentions the European regulation and explains that it is “hardly feasible” for around 9,000 PFAs to expose itself to a possible ban from 2026. Unlike chemistry.
Forever chemicals with a backbone of carbon atoms with bound fluoron atoms were first developed in the 1940s. Her resistance to oil, fat and water made her a commercial hit. However, the molecules made it possible for the molecules to linger in water, soil and air, in the food chain, in blood and in human organs. The substances were involved in different types of cancer, obesity and falling fertility. Manufacturers, including 3M and Dupont, have paid enormous sums for the settlement of health and environmental PFAS lawsuits.
The exact number of legacies and new PFAs is uncertain because some have been made but have never been documented. Numbers between 5,000 and 12,000 are often quoted. Their distribution led together with increasing health and environmental problems for OECD advice on A Definition examined by experts intends to capture the entire area of fluorinated molecules. This ended in 2021 with the input of chemical agencies all over the world.
In the magazine Environment Science & Technology Letters, the 20 protesting academics this month said that each fresh IUPAC maneuver “could rule out certain fluorinated chemical subgroups from the scope of the existing definition”. In view of the fact that the union is regarded as the ultimate referee of all things chemicalIncluding the names of new periodic table elements, his judgment will have a stroke. The letter continues: “An IUPAC-suitable and possibly closer PFAS definition could … influence the supervisory authorities and others to take on less protection policy.”
The protest letter was coordinated by Gabriel Sigmund, a researcher at Wageringen University in the Netherlands. It is signed by scientists in the USA, Canada, Great Britain, Sweden and Switzerland, some of which have worked on the OECD definition. Since then, more than 200 scientists have added their signatures, the FT found out.
Alex Ford, a marine ecotoxicologist at Plymouth University in Great Britain, said that he had signed because the change in the definitions “could sow doubts and to generate confusion” and should be outstanding. “We still see the harmful effects in the animal world of chemicals that we banned decades ago. They are chemically stable, very mobile and the more we see them poisonous.”
As with academic researchers, at least two members of the new IUPAC panel list is former or current links to industry. The co-chair Pierangelo Metrangolo, a chemist based in Milan, announces consulting work for the Solvay Solexis company about his publicly available curriculum vitae. In 2023, the parent company Solvay paid almost $ 400 million for the settlement of a PFAS lawsuit in New Jersey.
There is no indication that Metrangolo was involved. He previously said that the new committee has “not yet concluded, and there are no signs that certain subgroups are excluded from chemicals”. The IUPAC did not respond to a request for comments.
It is tempting to gloss over the series as technically, properly or irrelevant. But the definition of chemical matters forever forever: Like the chemicals themselves, its influence in the coming decades – on research, industrial practice, regulation and legal differences -.
