- Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed a lawsuit against chemical giants 3M and DuPont over PFAS, commonly known as "forever chemicals," accusing them of knowingly producing and marketing toxic substances while misleading the public about their safety.
- The lawsuit points to scientific evidence linking PFAS to serious health risks, including cancer, liver damage and reproductive issues. PFAS have contaminated water, soil and air, posing a significant threat to public health due to their persistence in the environment.
- Paxton's complaint seeks damages for cleanup, medical monitoring for affected communities and penalties for alleged violations of state consumer protection laws. The lawsuit emphasizes the need for accountability and immediate action to address PFAS contamination.
- 3M and DuPont have defended their practices, claiming compliance with regulations and efforts to reduce PFAS use. However, the lawsuit could set a precedent for future litigation against PFAS manufacturers and prompt other states to follow Texas's lead.
- Although the lawsuit is a significant step forward, it highlights the need for stronger federal regulations to address PFAS contamination comprehensively and coordinate a nationwide response to the issue.
Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton has filed a landmark lawsuit against two major chemical manufacturers over so-called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), commonly known as "forever chemicals."
Paxton's lawsuit filed Wednesday, Dec. 11, accused chemical giants 3M and DuPont of knowingly producing and marketing toxic PFAS while misleading the public about their safety. The complaint marks a significant escalation in the Lone Star State's efforts to hold corporations accountable for environmental and public health damages caused by PFAS contamination.
In a statement released on his official X account, Paxton declared that the two companies have knowingly poisoned Texans for decades, and it's time for them to face the consequences. The tweet, which has garnered widespread attention, highlights the AG's determination to "protect Texas families from the harmful effects of these dangerous chemicals."
3M and DuPont are accused of falsely advertising their products containing PFAS as safe, despite extensive scientific evidence linking the chemicals to serious health risks, including cancer, liver damage and reproductive issues. The lawsuit further alleges that the companies engaged in deceptive marketing practices and failed to disclose the long-term environmental and health impacts of PFAS.
The chemicals, which are resistant to degradation, have been used in a wide range of consumer products, including non-stick cookware, firefighting foam, and waterproof clothing. Their persistence in the environment has led to widespread contamination of water supplies, soil and air, posing a significant threat to public health.
PFAS contamination has become a pressing issue across the United States, with numerous states and municipalities taking legal action against manufacturers. However, Texas' lawsuit stands out for its scope and the specific allegations against 3M and DuPont. The complaint seeks damages for the cleanup of contaminated sites, medical monitoring for affected communities, and penalties for the companies' alleged violations of state consumer protection laws.
Paxton's legal battle for the health of Texans
Paxton's office has emphasized the urgency of addressing PFAS contamination, particularly in Texas, where numerous water systems have tested positive for high levels of the chemicals. The lawsuit cites studies showing that exposure to PFAS can lead to a range of health problems, including increased risk of kidney and testicular cancer, thyroid disease and developmental delays in children. The AG's office has called for immediate action to mitigate the risks and hold the companies accountable for their role in perpetuating the crisis.
In response to the lawsuit, 3M and DuPont have defended their practices, arguing that they have complied with all applicable regulations and have taken steps to reduce the use of PFAS in their products. The companies have also pointed to ongoing research into safer alternatives to PFAS, which they claim demonstrates their commitment to environmental stewardship. However, critics argue that these efforts are insufficient and that the companies have a moral obligation to address the harm caused by decades of PFAS production and use. (Related: Common bandages contain alarming levels of cancer-causing PFAS, which leach directly into the blood.)
Legal experts anticipate that the case could set a precedent for future litigation against PFAS manufacturers, particularly if Texas is successful in proving that the companies engaged in deceptive practices. The lawsuit could also prompt other states to follow Texas's lead and take similar action against chemical manufacturers.
While the lawsuit represents a significant step forward in the fight against PFAS contamination, some environmental advocates have called for stronger federal regulations to address the issue. Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency has set interim health advisories for PFAS in drinking water but has not established enforceable limits. Critics argue that federal action is needed to ensure a coordinated and comprehensive response to PFAS contamination nationwide.
In the meantime, Paxton's lawsuit serves as a powerful reminder of the ongoing threat posed by PFAS and the need for accountability. As the case moves forward, it will likely draw attention to the broader issues surrounding chemical regulation and the role of corporate responsibility in protecting public health and the environment.
Visit Chemicals.news for more stories about PFAS.
Watch this video about PFAS levels in Australian drinking water, which are 140 times higher than in the U.S. water system.
This video is from the DC Learning to Live channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
EPA monitoring a new class of toxic PFAS in municipal water supplies – GenX chemicals.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
