PFAS: Could these substances trigger the next asbestos crisis?

A large family of man-made chemicals, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals,” are a growing concern to businesses and insurers alike. In the United States, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are at the center of substantial litigation alleging bodily injury or property damage, partly spurred on by increased government action. While Canada has not moved at the same pace, British Columbia is furthest along in regulating the substances and federal guidelines are expected this summer.

Discussion of the issue has now entered the mainstream with recent articles by major news organizations like the CBC and publications like Maclean’s, as well as a popular 2019 film, “Dark Waters.” This past June, several news outlets featured a study that found PFAS in approximately half of the cosmetics sold in North America. Because of its pervasiveness, most of us have been already impacted by forever chemicals to varying degrees. A Health Canada study found 98.5 percent of Canadians have PFAS in their blood¹.

What are PFAS?

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of over 5,000 chemicals that consist of multiple fluorine atoms attached to a carbon backbone. This carbon-fluorine bond, which is the strongest in organic chemistry, is what makes the compounds so useful to industrial applications. It is also the reason that the aptly named forever chemicals are extremely persistent and mobile in the environment.

Soon after their accidental discovery by DuPont in the 1930s, PFAS came into wide use for their water-, heat- and oil-resistant properties. They are now found in everything from the above-mentioned cosmetics to rain-proof outdoor clothing, the lining of fast-food packaging and coffee cups, and anti-stick cookware. Industrial applications are plenty, such as in chrome plating, electronics and the coating of petroleum pipelines. Perhaps of most relevance to property owners is the use of PFAS in firefighting foams. Aqueous firefighting foam (AFFF) has been a major source of groundwater contamination in the areas around oil refineries, airports, chemical plants, military bases and firefighting training centers. Inevitably, the disposal of AFFF-contaminated debris after a fire leads to the large-scale contamination of municipal landfills as well.

Human health and environmental impact: Our current understanding

While most North Americans have some level of PFAS in their systems, it is those communities that are closest to major sources of its production and use that are most impacted. Not only is the regulation of PFAS still in development, but also the science. Until very recently, there was little recognition that these chemicals might pose a real risk to human and environmental health. There continues to be a great deal of scientific uncertainty on how much PFAS in your system is too much, and for whom. This complicates the guidelines that governments may impose.

Most experts agree that they pose the greatest risk to pregnant and nursing mothers, as well as the young. Recent research has linked PFAS to a myriad of health issues, such as low-infant birth weight, cholesterol increases, cancers, and thyroid problems. The compounds have been even implicated in worsening our susceptibility to severe COVID-19, and to reducing the effectiveness of vaccines. Much like mercury, PFAS build up, or bio-accumulate, for years in the bodies of humans and the animals they consume. They move well and quickly through the environment, which has led to substantial transport to northern communities.

Treatment options

Unlike some common pollutants, PFAS do not degrade naturally in the environment. The use of conventional treatment options has proven ineffective and costly. Further, the presence of other contaminants in the soil and groundwater — as can be the case with a long-time industrial site — can complicate PFAS remediation. The most prevalent method has been ex-situ pump and treat systems, which can be expensive and challenging where contamination is often widely distributed across a site.

Not all remediation options are appropriate for all kinds of PFAS. Treatment largely depends on the type of PFAS present, as long-chain varieties have longer half-lives than short-chain compounds. In-situ, the creation of barriers can be an option to contain the PFAS plume and prevent its migration offsite. This can be used in conjunction with other options, such as excavation and disposal. Of course, the disposed soil or groundwater will have to itself be dealt with by such means as incineration.

What now?

A difficulty for insurers and insureds alike is that the testing of PFAS was not a required part of the due diligence ahead of a real estate transaction. In the U.S. alone, a project to map the contamination has found thousands of sites known to be impacted. The production of the most commonly studied and most worrisome long-chain PFAS compounds — namely, perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) — were largely phased out in North America and Europe years ago. It is important to note that they are still being imported to Canada under an exemption for certain essential uses.² Meanwhile, their production has since increased in Russia, India, and China, offsetting global reductions. In developed economies, other PFAS compounds were introduced to replace PFOS and PFOA. Short-chain PFAS or GenX compounds were originally thought to be safer than their long-chained predecessors.

Recent studies have cast doubt on their supposed safety, finding that they potentially cause similarly adverse health impacts in animals.³ This is why some experts are calling for greater international coordination in regulating PFAS production and use. Further, there will have to be a market shift to a full product life-cycle approach, and a switch to PFAS-free products and technologies. Alternatives are already in use for textiles and packaging, while PFAS-free firefighting foam is deemed to be just as effective in containing chemical fires.

As for the historical pollution, there is no way to avoid the legacy of PFAS for companies or consumers. The pervasiveness of the issue and its class-action potential combined is what leads some industry experts to draw parallels to the asbestos liability crisis. As DuPont and 3M can attest to, historical manufacturers of the chemicals are obvious targets of litigation. Retailers, distributors and even municipalities have been caught up in recent PFAS claims. In these early days, it is difficult to say who in the supply chain will be immune to its product and environmental liabilities. As legal action and regulatory focus increases globally, Zurich Insurance Group is currently engaging major stakeholders in a dialogue on the issue. We continue to work with the assistance of our Risk Engineers to better assess, mitigate, and manage the risks associated with PFAS.

1. Health Canada. “Fifth Report on Human Biomonitoring of Environmental Chemicals in Canada.” Health Canada. November 2019.
2. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC). PFAS Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document and Fact Sheets: PFAS-1. May 2021.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). “Fact Sheet: Draft Toxicity Assessments for GenX Chemicals and PFBS.” November 2018.