Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Government

Colorado Law To Ban Everyday Products With PFAS (theguardian.com) 82

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: A new law coming into effect in Colorado in July is banning everyday products that intentionally contain toxic "forever chemicals," including clothes, cookware, menstruation products, dental floss and ski wax -- unless they can be made safer. Under the legislation, which takes effect on 1 July, many products using per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances -- or PFAS chemicals linked to cancer risk, lower fertility and developmental delays -- will be prohibited starting in 2026. By 2028, Colorado will also ban the sale of all PFAS-treated clothes, backpacks and waterproof outdoor apparel. The law will also require companies selling PFAS-coated clothing to attach disclosure labels.

The initial draft of state senate bill 81, introduced in 2022, included a full ban on PFAS beginning in 2032. But that measure was written out after facing opposition. Colorado has already passed a measure requiring companies to phase out PFAS in carpets, furniture, cosmetics, juvenile products, some food packaging and those used in oil and gas production. The incoming law's diluted version illustrates the challenges lawmakers have in regulating chemicals that are used to make products waterproof, nonstick or resistant to staining. Manufacturers say the products, at best, will take time to make with a safer replacement -- or at worst, are not yet possible to get made in such fashion. [...]

In Colorado, state senator Lisa Cutter, one of the sponsors of the new law there, has said she still wants a complete ban on PFAS but acknowledges the problems. "As much as I want PFAS to go away forever and forever, there are going to be some difficult pivots," she told the outlet. They include balancing the potential cost to consumers in making products PFAS-free. Cutter told CBS News that it was "really hard" challenging lobbying groups that "spent a lot of money ensuring that these chemicals can continue being put into our products and make profits." Cutter had been accused of stifling innovation and industry. She said she believed companies could be successful while also looking out for the communities they serve. "Certainly, there are cases where it's not plausible right away to gravitate away from them, but we need to be moving in that direction," Cutter said. "Our community shouldn't have to pay the price for their health."

Colorado Law To Ban Everyday Products With PFAS More | Reply

Colorado Law To Ban Everyday Products With PFAS

Comments Filter:

  • Industrial use will be a problem. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Mspangler ( 770054 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @12:02AM (#64575385)

    Eliminating all the perfluoropolymers will be a long term research project. No more PVDF for ultra pure water and chemical lines.

      Are they willing to accept higher fugitive emissions from inferior gaskets in chemical plants?

    No more Teflon tape or Teflon joint compound. No more ECTFE (Halar). No more Viton.

    These materials solved real problems, Neoprene and buna-n have serious limitations.

    • Re:Industrial use will be a problem. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @12:16AM (#64575397) Journal

      Now this is the kind of post that keeps me here. I never heard of Viton [viton.com] until just now You make a compelling argument for keeping these compounds around in some applications. The law seems targeted at items to which consumers will be directly exposed. That makes sense. The average consumer is not going to consider a frayed tarp, worn tape, or old backpack as hazardous. OTOH, somebody replacing a gasket at a chemical plant can be required to follow strict procedures not only for the process of replacement but disposal also. It may very well be that the most practical solution is to ultimately restrict such compounds to situations where people are accustomed to following procedures (or at least they should be).

      • Just tax it. Sudden, total bans are dangerous and damaging.
        Colorado may have some funny sounding but serious problems starting in 2026...

        • Re:Industrial use will be a problem. (Score:4, Insightful)

          by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @03:32AM (#64575655) Journal

          No. If you "just tax it", the cost will simply get passed on to consumers. It will do nothing to remove the materials from applications where they're not necessary, and nothing to assure that they're properly handled where they are necessary.

          • the cost will simply get passed on to consumers.

            That's the point. Higher prices incentivize consumers to buy different products.

            A ban will result in even higher prices, which will also be passed on to consumers.

            • Higher prices incentivize consumers to buy different products.

              There's all kinds of study, both theoretical and empirical that says otherwise. Especially in the case of consumer goods, price is used as a signal of quality and consumers will actually choose more expensive goods even if it's the same product. Usually it's a different product though, the classic example being the latest and greatest iPhone where people often choose that over the alternative due to things other than price.

              The law is aimed at

              • Your own post is a gross oversimplification and believing that consumers aren't rational actors is wrong. They're not perfectly rational, nor are they oracles with perfect information to make decisions, but saying they aren't affected at all by supply and demand is simply wrong. Were this not the case companies could continually raise prices without end and see no decline in sales.

                High price, low quality consumer goods are a status symbol. You and I may think that's incredibly stupid and value the utilit

          • No. If you "just tax it", the cost will simply get passed on to consumers.

            YES. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT.

            Someone makes that complaint EVERY TIME. And EVERY TIME, it is a stupid complaint. Why? Because we have demonstrated time and again that taxing undesirable behavior is effective at reducing it. The detractors of these policies claim that the costs outweigh the benefits, but this is of course false. The costs of cleaning up forever chemicals are essentially infinite. We have no plan for doing it, and any plan we can even imagine today would literally cost more than we could spend, b

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              Exactly - tax is a great solution because it actually allows people to think critically and solve problems.

              Need long lived value seals for an engine, that are effective at controlling emission - great Viton you don't need many of them or much of it, whatever the taxes are it, it still be cheaper than having to rebuild the engine 30k miles sooner, or disposing the vehicle much earlier.

              On the other hand you can find another non PFAS solution for your disposable shopping bag. There are lots of other suitable

            • That's only if there are obvious and easily replaceable alternatives. A soda tax works because everyone knows you can obviously just drink water or tea or other non-soda drinks. But when it comes to these forever chemicals in just about everything made with plastic, does the average shopper know the difference, do the alternatives even exist? They might just assume their normal toothpaste brand went up $1 in price because of inflation, or price gouging, or any number of reasons, not because the plastic t

              • That's only if there are obvious and easily replaceable alternatives.

                There are. Thanks for your endorsement.

                Are they more expensive? Yes. Is it worth it? Also yes, given what we know about the impact of these chemicals.

              • Tax or incomplete ban vs complete ban permits it to remain in use in niche edge cases. As in you can still get incandescent bulbs for your oven and you could use one of those bulbs in a box as a low grade heater in your garage to keep paint from freezing or whatever. There will remain scientific and industrial use for many things you don't want the general public to be messing around with and dumping down their storm sewer.
          • Except that's not true, because Pigouvian taxes have been known to be effective policy for centuries.

            "Passing the cost onto consumers" would be the whole point...make the person responsible for the externality pay for the externality. Those not willing to pay for the externality will switch to other alternatives; those who are, will pay up.

            Increasing the cost of PFAS goods (in theory, making them cost closer to their "true cost"), will in fact remove these products from a huge number of consumer application

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by smap77 ( 1022907 )

            There is no difference between an infinite tax rate and banning a product, is there?

            For products that actually need PFAS, the cost of taxation will be passed on or paid by the consumer directly. For products that can't withstand the additional cost, PFAS will not be used.

            Quite simple.

            Also, Taxation doesn't directly affect those other concerns, as you well know. Look for other economic mechanisms to address those.

    • Re:Industrial use will be a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Cyberax ( 705495 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @12:26AM (#64575415)

      Eliminating all the perfluoropolymers will be a long term research project. No more PVDF for ultra pure water and chemical lines.

      It doesn't look like _all_ fluoropolymers are problematic. They are also "forever chemicals", but they are not toxic because they are so unreactive. They are also not soluble in, well, pretty much anything.

      The most problematic compounds are the ones that have a polar "head", that makes them so useful (PFOA, PFOS, etc.). It makes them great surfactants, and so they are much more mobile. But these can reasonably be phased out eventually.

    • Re: Industrial use will be a problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fons_de_spons ( 1311177 ) on Tuesday June 25, 2024 @01:17AM (#64575497)
      EU did something like that. They limited lead contents in electronics. It was a disaster at first. Electronics comming loose due to thermal stress,...
      Tech industry found new ways to deal with it. As we say in Dutch: sometimes you need to shake the tree to make things happen.
      No worries, industry will kick back and legislation will learn a lot about the uses of PFAS.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by logjon ( 1411219 )

        As we say in Dutch: sometimes you need to shake the tree to make things happen.

        Here in the US, we prefer to scream "FAKE NEWS" before doubling down and making the problem worse.

    • Are they willing to accept higher fugitive emissions from inferior gaskets in chemical plants?

      Most gaskets in chemical plants are not PTFE. The type of gasket used is highly dependent on the application.

    • No more teflon wire insulation.

  • There are many examples of why it's not a complete ban. But, there are alternatives to most products using PFAs that should be explored and used instead. No reason to wait another 50 years to get the alternatives to market right now. I'm glad we're going in the right direction.
  • Fur coats don't have any of these nasty "forever chemicals", they are a renewalable resource, come from open range, and most are probably organic. Then from the california side would not have to be labeled as cancer causing.

  • "....there are going to be some difficult pivots," she told the outlet. They include balancing the potential cost to consumers in making products PFAS-free.

    More important than cost is effectiveness. If my boots leak because the makers are not allowed to use waterproof materials any more, they are worth nothing whatever I paid for them. I'd rather pay twice as much for boots that don't leak. But I expect we will get boots that cost 50% more and still leak.

    Also, banning effective stuff means I spend a significantly higher % of my life maintaining and replacing things apparently to reduce my chance of getting cancer by some tiny %. Do any lawmakers actually

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Saffaya ( 702234 )

      Have you looked at the fertility decline in males?
      Does the survival of the human race mean anything to you?

      Serious questions.

    • If my boots leak

      Whathtefuck are you even talking about. Effective waterproof boots have existed substantially longer than PFAS have been manufactured.

      Also, banning effective stuff means I spend a significantly higher % of my life maintaining and replacing things

      Assuming this is true: so what? You would rather not do your job and are prepared to externalise the costs by raising the chance of cancer in other people?

      Do any lawmakers actually do that sort of benefit analysis?

      Yes.

      Like in the EU they banned c

  • -- unless they can be made safer

    And there's the get-out-of-jail-free card. Like the food law, where the use of non-traditional ingredients forced the maker to add the word "imitation" to the product. If you baked cookies but replaced some of the flower with soy, you had to call it "imitation cookies". Until the law was changed, that is. The change of the law was that the word "imitation" was no longer needed if an ingredient would somehow make the product better.

    Since then, the US government stopped enforcing the law altogether, because "

  • "They're banned! Illegal for sale! Also, you have to label them when you sell them."
    Makes sense to me.
  • I, unlike some others, think it's probably a net economic good for governments to forbid poisoning people and the environment with this particular kind of cumulative chemical that lasts for forty million years or whatever. However, I do worry that, when deprived of their precious PFA's, the chemical companies are just going to switch to whatever Happy Fun Ball was made of, which will take an additional 50 years to ban, and so on.
  • What's as good as teflon dental floss ? The other just shred or snap.
  • I was never too comfortable with non-stick cookware. Seems too close to ingestion to be safe. But I'm sure Dupont and 3M have our well being in heart when they sell their products

Slashdot Top Deals

"Thank heaven for startups; without them we'd never have any advances." -- Seymour Cray

Close