Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts

Lawyers To Plastic Makers: Prepare For 'Astronomical' PFAS Lawsuits (nytimes.com) 110

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: The defense lawyer minced no words as he addressed a room full of plastic-industry executives. Prepare for a wave of lawsuits with potentially "astronomical" costs. Speaking at a conference earlier this year, the lawyer, Brian Gross, said the coming litigation could "dwarf anything related to asbestos," one of the most sprawling corporate-liability battles in United States history. Mr. Gross was referring to PFAS, the "forever chemicals" that have emerged as one of the major pollution issues of our time. Used for decades in countless everyday objects -- cosmetics, takeout containers, frying pans -- PFAS have been linked to serious health risks including cancer. Last month the federal government said several types of PFAS must be removed from the drinking water of hundreds of millions of Americans. "Do what you can, while you can, before you get sued," Mr. Gross said at the February session, according to a recording of the event made by a participant and examined by The New York Times. "Review any marketing materials or other communications that you've had with your customers, with your suppliers, see whether there's anything in those documents that's problematic to your defense," he said. "Weed out people and find the right witness to represent your company."

A wide swath of the chemicals, plastics and related industries are gearing up to fight a surge in litigation related to PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a class of nearly 15,000 versatile synthetic chemicals linked to serious health problems. [...] PFAS-related lawsuits have already targeted manufacturers in the United States, including DuPont, its spinoff Chemours, and 3M. Last year, 3M agreed to pay at least $10 billion to water utilities across the United States that had sought compensation for cleanup costs. Thirty state attorneys general have also sued PFAS manufacturers, accusing the manufacturers of widespread contamination. But experts say the legal battle is just beginning. Under increasing scrutiny are a wider universe of companies that use PFAS in their products. This month, plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against Bic, accusing the razor company for failing to disclose that some of its razors contained PFAS. Bic said it doesn't comment on pending litigation, and said it had a longstanding commitment to safety.

The Biden administration has moved to regulate the chemicals, for the first time requiring municipal water systems to remove six types of PFAS. Last month, the Environmental Protection Agency also designated two of those PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law, shifting responsibility for their cleanup at contaminated sites from taxpayers to polluters. Both rules are expected to prompt a new round of litigation from water utilities, local communities and others suing for cleanup costs. "To say that the floodgates are opening is an understatement," said Emily M. Lamond, an attorney who focuses on environmental litigation at the law firm Cole Schotz. "Take tobacco, asbestos, MTBE, combine them, and I think we're still going to see more PFAS-related litigation," she said, referring to methyl tert-butyl ether, a former harmful gasoline additive that contaminated drinking water. Together, the trio led to claims totaling hundreds of billions of dollars.
Unlike tobacco, used by only a subset of the public, "pretty much every one of us in the United States is walking around with PFAS in our bodies," said Erik Olson, senior strategic director for environmental health at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "And we're being exposed without our knowledge or consent, often by industries that knew how dangerous the chemicals were, and failed to disclose that," he said. "That's a formula for really significant liability."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lawyers To Plastic Makers: Prepare For 'Astronomical' PFAS Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • by fintux ( 798480 ) on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @01:00AM (#64506985)
    The plastic companies have been well aware of what they have doing to the environment and people with PFAS for decades. But they have not cared. Why? Because they have done the math. If they can make billions after billions in profit every year, the top level people can get their mansions, luxury yachts, servants, whatever. Eventually when the risk of lawsuits may realize, who is on the line? The employees, perhaps some of the stock owners. But usually the fines are such that they just make a dent for one year's budget. There is no real incentive to do the right thing. And there are so many precedents to this. The punishment is systematically too little, too late, so this keeps happening time after time after time again. They should go after the management who oversaw all this, and give them consequences that they really, really feel in their life so that it would heavily discourage the risk taking on the expense of people's health and lives.
    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by thegarbz ( 1787294 )

      The plastic companies have been well aware of what they have doing to the environment and people with PFAS for decades.

      [Citation Needed] and it would be a quite welcome one. We know quite clearly that oil companies knew about climate change for decades and have discussed the Exxon papers at length, but it would seem that the impact of PFAS is scientifically a very recent development.

      I mean you may be right, but right now your post is an empty claim.

      • Only if you count since at least the 1980s as a very recent development. For the rest of us mere mortals, that was a couple of generations ago.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Only if you count since at least the 1980s as a very recent development.

          That's not a citation. You're just making another empty claim.

      • by serafean ( 4896143 ) on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @03:36AM (#64507111)

        https://theintercept.com/2015/... [theintercept.com]

        > DuPont scientists had closely studied the chemical for decades and through their own research knew about some of the dangers it posed. Yet rather than inform workers, people living near the plant, the general public, or government agencies responsible for regulating chemicals, DuPont repeatedly kept its knowledge secret.

        • I actually doubt they did not supply their workers with MSDSs. If one can prove that they lied in the MSDS, then it's time for an astronomical lawsuit indeed.
          • It's reportedly somewhere in the court documents.
            At this point I'll take journalists at their word, and assume wrongdoing by corporations. Luckily I'm neither judge, nor jury, nor executioner; those shouldn't take this approach.

            • At this point I'll take journalists at their word, and assume wrongdoing by corporations. Luckily I'm neither judge, nor jury, nor executioner; those shouldn't take this approach.
              You sweet summer child, google Dateline NBC truck explosion and learn about "journalists." And this was back in 1992.
              • by SirSlud ( 67381 )

                between who are worse repeat offenders of ethical improprieties - journalists or corporations, I don't think I'm being Rage Against the Machine by believing that most investigative journalists are acting in good faith more often than corporations.

              • At this point I'll take journalists at their word, and assume wrongdoing by corporations. Luckily I'm neither judge, nor jury, nor executioner; those shouldn't take this approach.
                You sweet summer child, google Dateline NBC truck explosion and learn about "journalists." And this was back in 1992.

                So your point is that mainstream journalists might be expected to deliberately mislead their viewers every 30+ years or so?

                I'm not sure that example makes the point you wanted to make.

                Of course journalists can occasionally cross ethical boundaries, just like every profession in existence. It would actually be kinda weird if being a journalist suddenly made people completely incorruptible.

                However, for mainstream journalists their reputation is everything, so overall they generally do try to be as unbiased an

                • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

                  However, for mainstream journalists their reputation is everything, so overall they generally do try to be as unbiased and impartial as possible (at least from the perspective of their audience).

                  We live in two very different worlds.

                • by flink ( 18449 )

                  However, for mainstream journalists their reputation is everything, so overall they generally do try to be as unbiased and impartial as possible (at least from the perspective of their audience).

                  Yeah, they would never never, let's say, lend their full-throated support to politicians' jingoistic calls for a war that was patently illegal, inhumane, and virtually unwinnable. They'd lose all credibility after doing that...

                • by ncc74656 ( 45571 ) *

                  However, for mainstream journalists their reputation is everything, so overall they generally do try to be as unbiased and impartial as possible

                  Best. Comedy. Evar.

                  Ever hear of Walter Duranty? The New York Times still hasn't handed back the Pulitzer it was given for his lies.

              • So one bad-faith act 30+ years ago now discounts an entire worldwide profession and literally millions of good-faith acts of investigative reporting.

                You didn't do very well in any classwork that required argumentation, did you?

                If you want to question the particular reporters / journalists / producers that were responsible for that bad-faith report based on that, feel free. However, you don't get to smear all of investigative journalism because of one bad-faith report from so long ago like it's some victori

        • PFOA is something we have *ALL* known was toxic for decades. Did your mother not warn you about the dangers of overheating or scratching teflon pans? It's not what is being discussed in TFS or TFA. You're going to need to provide an actual *relevant* citation.

        • Same exact story with leaded gasoline. People were being poisoned at the manufacturing plants and the company paid scientists to claim it was safe.

        • DuPont repeatedly kept its knowledge secret.

          Insanity. Those executives and their children have to live on this planet too. Why would they actively choose that for THEMSELVES? It is easy to do it to someone else (just don't pay attention)... but to yourself? Seriously, what the fuck?

      • It is literally stated in the summary that the companies knew for a long time. Not about everything in all cases, but for the most hazardous stuff, they knew, once again, from the summary, "...often by industries that knew how dangerous the chemicals were, and failed to disclose that,"
      • "Careful with those wolverines, they'll rip your face off!"

        "Lol JSTOR link or GTFO"

      • They've known since the 1970s [propublica.org]

        And this further establishes that corporations are soulless, wantonly careless of harm in the pursuit of profit. Lot of historic examples. Big Tobacco, insecticides and herbicides such as DDT, the Radium Girls, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire and more recently the Rana Plaza building collapse in Bangladesh. The mining industry is notorious for killing their own workers as well as innocent bystanders and dumping huge messes on public lands for everyone to clean up. Pr

      • by Pascoea ( 968200 )

        [Citation Needed]

        "In one early experiment, conducted in the late ’70s, a group of 3M scientists fed PFOS to rats on a daily basis. Starting at the second-lowest dose that the scientists tested, about 10 milligrams for every kilogram of body weight, the rats showed signs of possible harm to their livers, and half of them died. At higher doses, every rat died. Soon afterward, 3M scientists found that a relatively low daily dose, 4.5 milligrams for every kilogram of body weight, could kill a monkey within weeks. (Based

        • Um ok, so the average person with a body weight (in the US) of 80 kg, would need to consume 360 mg a day every day for weeks to experience this adverse effect. A typical teflon pan, before they discontinued use of PFOA, might have had a residual 1.1 ug (that’s micrograms) left after the heat treatment that was supposed to destroy it.
          https://montrealgazette.com/te... [montrealgazette.com]

          So what is the serious danger to the public that was concealed exactly? Dose matters.

    • The plastic companies have been well aware of what they have doing to the environment and people with PFAS for decades. But they have not cared. Why? ... The punishment is systematically too little, too late, so this keeps happening time after time after time again. They should go after the management who oversaw all this, and give them consequences that they really, really feel in their life so that it would heavily discourage the risk taking on the expense of people's health and lives.

      This is the problem. It's not that the punishment is too late. It's that the people responsible for the decisions and the people who profit are completely and entirely left unpunished. That's the way that our corporate system is set up. The corporation can be punished, but it's super hard to punish the people who benefited and profited the most. So, the people who are punished are the current employees and stockholders. The people who created the problem and did the damage have long cashed in their sa

    • No one from Monsanto or Bayer ever got in trouble for covering the planet in Roundup. Bayer keeps trying to make it sound like the lawsuits are a huge burden that they need to get rid of, but really 50 billion in annual revenue vs 11 billion in payouts for 100,000 lawsuits. Stop making chemicals that cause cancer maybe.

  • I can see it now: swarms of greedy lawyers filing class action lawsuits. The goal will not be any sort of meaningful reimbursement of individuals, or even a legal win. Instead, the goal will be to extort settlements out of companies, with those settlements going to the lawyers.

    The interesting technical question is: To what extent have companies reduced or eliminated their usage of PFAS since the initial concerns were raised about 20 years ago? Usage before then are not really relevant, because we didn't k

  • by storkus ( 179708 ) on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @02:04AM (#64507011)

    Look on Wikipedia. This includes fire fighting foams, anything with Teflon & relatives, HFCs like R134a, most (all?) synthetic water repelling coatings, etc.

    The headline, as common on /. & news these days, is patently false (like most patents): this includes way more than plastics and NO plastics that don't contain fluorine!

    Now if we were talking micro-plastics we could be in serious trouble, and I think that'll be next.

  • by penguinoid ( 724646 ) on Wednesday May 29, 2024 @02:16AM (#64507025) Homepage Journal

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    PFAS production generates approximately US$4 billion in profits annually, but remediation costs may exceed that figure. One estimate is approximately US$17.5 trillion in global costs annually, amounting to 17.5% of the US$100 trillion global GDP in 2022

    Maybe the "privatize profits, socialize costs" model isn't the best for this.

    They have two main markets: a $1 billion annual market for use in stain repellents, and a $100 million annual market for use in polishes, paints, and coatings. ... Over the past two decades, production of certain PFASs has increasingly moved to Asia, where there is less regulatory scrutiny. ... In 2022, it was found that levels of at least four perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in rainwater worldwide ubiquitously and often greatly exceeded the EPA's lifetime drinking water health advisories as well as comparable Danish, Dutch, and European Union safety standards

    Oops... who would have thought exporting pollution was like pissing into the wind. Oh well, at least our things are mildly stain resistant.

    • by vbdasc ( 146051 )

      Oops... who would have thought exporting pollution was like pissing into the wind.

      Nope, it makes perfect sense for the corporations. If you're assuming that the toxic rainwater is what concerns them in the slightest, then you're very wrong.

    • In 2022, it was found that levels of at least four perfluoroalkyl acids (PFAAs) in rainwater worldwide ubiquitously and often greatly exceeded the EPA's lifetime drinking water health advisories as well as comparable Danish, Dutch, and European Union safety standards

      Hadn't read about that. That's just wonderful.

  • "... there's some chance that we might actually manufacture something or employ someone!"

    "Code red! Release the lawyers!!"

    • I'd say plastic manufacturing is probably a net good in terms of access to durable goods, but its certainly made vast swaths of historical artisans obsolete. Various forms of woodworking, weaving, smithing, pottery are all done with far fewer jobs now, that's why extruded mass produced chemicals are so cheap in comparison. Certainly for containers it is superior to many other options but a rubber lizard instead of a wooden mini rocking horse is just landfill vs compost when the kid is grown.
      • by ghoul ( 157158 )
        You do realize before plastic packaging almost 40% of food went bad before it hit the shelves. Plastics have allowed poor people to eat meat , milk and vegetables instead of gruel. Roosevelt won the election with the slogan "a chicken in every pot". A chicken was a luxury. Meat was served maybe twice a year at thanksgiving and Christmas. Plastics and fossil fuels (both for transport and for fertilizers) have made food so cheap that the poor today eat like the elite of pre WW1. Take away plastics and fossil
        • Yes, also disposable scientific equipment, electronics, lots of cool stuff. Realistically I doubt we'd be able to eliminate all plastics for those reasons among others, but it might be sensible to restrict which kinds we use. Lead is a great material for paint and plumbing apart from toxicity issues, so we use others. It may be that if we limit mass produced plastic to a more limited slate of types suited for purpose but also factoring in environment/recyclability and toxicity/long term impact we can get
  • https://www.consumerreports.or... [consumerreports.org]

    I also expect the PFAS folks to lobby for blanket immunity like the covid shot makers got.

    • That wasn't anything particular for COVID, vaccine manufacture in general has been protected from liability since 1986. There's an injury compensation plan as alternative to tort.
    • by ghoul ( 157158 )
      Plastics by preventing food from going bad save more lives than any vaccine ever did. So while you were joking, its not illogical.
      • t's not illogical but the circumstances are very different or at least they are so far. Vaccines don't really have alternatives like plastics do and the Injury Fund law only passed since vaccine makers were stopping production due to unfounded lawsuits so there was a public incentive to keep production online. I don't think we have gotten there yet with these plastics, there are plenty of alternatives we can use if this shakes out that the chemicals are toxic.

  • "Review any marketing materials or other communications that you've had with your customers, with your suppliers, see whether there's anything in those documents that's problematic to your defense," he said. "Weed out people and find the right witness to represent your company."

    Translation: "Bury as much culpatory written material as you can, and start work immediately on minimizing and rationalizing what you can't bury. Get rid of employees who might tell the truth, and find or hire someone who will lie convincingly on your behalf".

  • The lawyers are not telling these corporations to clean up their products, they're telling them to clean up the legal trail. Purge documents that could be used in a court room and ferret out possible whistle blowers from the organization. Evil corporations churning out toxic chemicals for profit and hiding the evidence.
    it happens over and over.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
  • "Do what you can, while you can, before you get sued,"

    That might be a trap. The argument could be made that attempts to clean up are an admission that the companies knew the harm they caused.

The gent who wakes up and finds himself a success hasn't been asleep.

Working...