Some major US lobbying firms are simultaneously working on both sides of the Pfas “forever chemicals” issue, raising serious conflicts of interest and concerns that their activity is slowing states’ efforts to control the public health threat.
The review of lobbying records from six states by the nonprofit F-Minus found a variety of scenarios in which companies pressured both sides. The most common Pfa are related to cancer. Lobbying firm Holland & Knight works for the American Chemistry Council, which represents the country’s largest PFAs manufacturers, and aggressively opposes most regulations. At the same time, Holland & Knight lobbies on behalf of the American Cancer Society.
In a statement to The Guardian, Holland & Knight said they follow “rigorous ethics and conflict review procedures in all of their legal and public policy work.”
They state: “The report’s conclusions are based on an erroneous premise that assumes that any relationship with a client means that the company is defending that client on every policy issue. This is a mischaracterization of the nature of the company’s work for its clients and wrongly implies conflicts where none exist.”
Lobbyist Rocky Dallum of the firm Tonkon Torp lobbied against a state bill in Oregon that would have banned Pfas in many consumer goods. He also pushed for the Oregon Biosciences Association to fund newborn screening for rare diseases. In utero exposure to Pfas is linked to decreased immunity, neurotoxic effects, rare cancers, and other health problems.
In New Jersey, state records show that the Princeton Public Affairs Group lobbied for and against a bill that banned PFAs in some consumer goods. The company made $96,000, F-Minus found.
Industry and lobbyists frequently succeed in quashing public health bills, or leaders sometimes enact “half measures,” said James Browning, executive director of F Minus and a former lobbyist. Either way, lobbyists get paid.
“Any negative publicity damage they may do to their reputation on the wrong side of permanent chemicals is mitigated by some of the good work they do for schools or cancer groups,” Browning said.
The review found 26 health systems, 11 public school systems, 15 wildlife groups and 132 local governments that share lobbying firms with Pfas manufacturers or trade groups, including the American Chemistry Council and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance. Lobbyists work in 36 states.
The report comes amid a broad effort at all levels of government that aims to curb Pfas contamination and exposure. The chemicals are widely used in consumer goods and industry, and are linked to a variety of health problems such as cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, kidney disease and hormonal disruptions.
The public health effort has sparked intense opposition lobbying by the chemical industry, which has killed most PFAs laws in recent years. The F-Minus analysis focused on six states because laws on disclosure of lobbying information are weak in most states, making it virtually impossible to track activity. F-Minus is in the process of creating a congressional lobby tracker, Browning said.
The report used lobbying around two Pfas-related bills in California to illustrate how the scenario can slow efforts to rein in Pfas while enriching lobbyists playing both sides. SB 682 proposed banning Pfas in cookware and some other consumer products, while SB 454 created a private fund to help clean up Pfas in water.
PFAs in consumer products are a source of water contamination, and water utilities across the state supported banning consumer products.
Lobbying firm KP Public Affairs earned nearly $275,000 lobbying for and against SB 682. It represented multiple chemical manufacturers or trade groups that opposed it. He lobbied for the Western Municipal Water District bill. Meanwhile, the firm Public Policy Advocates lobbied for the cleanup fund and, while representing the American Chemistry Council, worked against the ban on consumer products.
Newsom vetoed the consumer products ban, but not the cleanup fund, meaning PFA-laden products will continue to contaminate California water and fuel demand for cleanups. The veto gave “dual lobbying firms the ability to claim a victory with their industrial clients who use PFAS, and also claim a victory with their clients who supported SB 454, even though this veto will increase Pfas contamination of California’s water systems,” the report states.
State and federal laws do not prohibit companies from lobbying both sides of an issue, and this is quite common, said Craig Holman, ethics lobbyist for Public Citizen, a campaign finance watchdog. However, companies can be held legally responsible to their customers if there is any cooperation or exchange of information between the two parties, Holman added. And the situation raises questions about credibility.
“Most companies want to be recognized as renowned experts in defending a specific position,” Holman said. “Lobbying both sides of an issue confuses that kind of reputation.”
Browning, who used to lobby for the American Cancer Society, said there is a “halo effect” in lobbying for public health organizations, but that it is undeserved if lobbyists work for both sides. Some organizations know the companies they hire are in conflict, but they still don’t cut ties, Browning said. Other groups may not know that their lobbying firms are playing both sides.
Meanwhile, the Pfas harm the animals. Among the wildlife groups that share lobbying firms with the American Chemistry Council are the Marine Mammal Center in California, Salmon For All in Oregon and the League of Conservation Voters of New York.
A Pennsylvania state law requires schools to test drinking water for various Pfa compounds. Four Philadelphia schools have been found to be violating state standards. The city of Philadelphia and the American Chemistry Council share the lobbying firm Holland & Knight.
The American Chemistry Council has pushed for federal laws that would override state rules on PFAs. Holland & Knight received $80,000 and $520,000 from Philadelphia and the American Chemistry Council, respectively, according to the report.
After widespread Pfas contamination was found in Maine farmland and drinking water supplies, the state enacted a ban on non-essential uses of Pfas, including most consumer goods. The law allows some products to be exempt. The firm Preti Flaherty is working on behalf of the Cookware Sustainability Alliance to get cookware exempt, records show. He is also lobbying against a bill that requires health insurers to pay residents to test their blood for chemicals.
At the same time, Preti Flaherty is lobbying on behalf of the Portland Water District, which deals with Pfas-contaminated water and recently joined a lawsuit against 18 Pfas manufacturers, the report notes.
The report calls on groups and governments to cut ties with embattled companies, just as many did with tobacco industry lobbyists.
“The goal is to put a spotlight on the lobbying companies that are playing both sides of the issue so that they have to choose a side if they are with us and our families, or if they are with the chemical industry,” Zimmer said.
