Grouping approaches to PFAS and industry funding: a case study on the findings of a recent panel of experts

Pedro Bravo

doi:10.5007/1808-1711.2025.e103113

Authors

Pedro Bravo Universidade Federal do ABC https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3991-1931

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2025.e103113

Keywords:

General Philosophy of Science, Values in Science, Industry Funding, Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances

Abstract

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large class of chemicals, whose carbon-fluorine bonds allow a wide range of industrial applications but also make them highly persistent. Since there is evidence about only a few of them and their properties may vary, one of the pressing issues regarding PFAS is how to group them for different purposes. In this paper, I aim to show how a recent panel of experts about grouping PFAS was co-opted in a way that favor the fluorine industry. The panel consisted of eleven experts, including authors renowned for views in conflict with fluorine industry regulatory approaches, answering questions through an online application. Its main results along with the experts’ answers were published in 2022 in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. Through a detailed analysis of all the material published and in dialogue with the literature about industry-funded research, I will present how choices in the design of the panel (e.g., which kind of consensus the exercise could capture, the ways questions were framed or even changed), in textual analysis (e.g., criteria for assembling opinions) and in the communication of the findings (e.g., what gets included or excluded) were made in an industry friendly way affecting two specific grouping approaches. I conclude with some lessons about this kind of influence of industry funding.

References

Adekunle, L.; Chen, R.; Morrison, L.; Halley, M.; Eng, V.; Hendlin, Y.; Wehner, M. R.; Chren, M.-M.; Linos, E. 2020. Association between financial links to indoor tanning industry and conclusions of published studies on indoor tanning: Systematic review. BMJ 368: m7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m7

Anderson, J. K.; Brecher, R. W.; Cousins, I. T.; DeWitt, J.; Fiedler, H.; Kannan, K.; Kirman, C. R.; Lipscomb, J.; Priestly, B.; Schoeny, R.; Seed, J.; Verner, M.; Hays, S. M. 2022. Grouping of PFAS for human health risk assessment: Findings from an independent panel of experts. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 134: 105226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105226

Andrews, D.; Walker, B. 2015. Poisoned legacy: Ten years later, chemical safety and justice for Dupont’s teflon victims remain elusive. Environmental Working Group. Washington: EWG.org.

Aro, R.; Eriksson, U.; Kärrman, A.; Jakobsson, K.; Yeung, L. W. Y. 2022. Extractable organofluorine analysis: A way to screen for elevated per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination in humans?. Environment International 159: 107035. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.107035

Axelson, O. 2003. Correspondence about Publication Ethics and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 9(4): 386–391. https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2003.9.4.386

Bălan, S. A.; Mathrani, V. C.; Guo, D. F.; Algazi, A. M. 2021. Regulating PFAS as a Chemical Class under the California Safer Consumer Products Program. Environmental Health Perspectives 129(2): 025001. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7431

Blum, A.; Balan, S. A.; Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Goldenman, G.; Cousins, I. T.; Diamond, M.; Fletcher, T.; Higgins, C.; Lindeman, A. E.; Peaslee, G.; de, V. P.; Wang, Z.; Weber, R. 2015. The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs). Environmental Health Perspectives 123(5): A107–A111. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509934

Bowman, J. S. 2015. Fluorotechnology Is Critical to Modern Life: The FluoroCouncil Counterpoint to the Madrid Statement. Environmental Health Perspectives 123(5): A112–A113. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509910

Brown, J. R. 2017. Socializing Medical Research. In K. C. Elliott; D. Steel (Eds.), Current controversies in values and science. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Cousins, I. T.; Ng, C. A.; Wang, Z.; Scheringer, M. 2019a. Why is high persistence alone a major cause of concern?. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 21(5): 781–792. https://doi.org/10.1039/C8EM00515J

Cousins, I. T.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Miller, M.; Ng, C. A.; Patton, S.; Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Vierke, L.; Wang, Z.; DeWitt, J. C. 2019b. The concept of essential use for determining when uses of PFASs can be phased out. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 21(11): 1803–1815. https://doi.org/10.1039/C9EM00163H

Cousins, I. T.; DeWitt, J. C.; Glüge, J.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Miller, M.; Ng, C. A.; Scheringer, M.; Vierke, L.; Wang, Z. 2020a. Strategies for grouping per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) to protect human and environmental health. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 22(7): 1444–1460. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00147C

Cousins, I. T.; DeWitt, J. C.; Glüge, J.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C. A.; Scheringer, M.; Wang, Z. 2020b. The high persistence of PFAS is sufficient for their management as a chemical class. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 22(12): 2307–2312. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00355G

Cowlishaw, S.; Thomas, S. L. 2018. Industry interests in gambling research: Lessons learned from other forms of hazardous consumption. Addictive Behaviors 78: 101–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2017.11.007

Elliott, K. C. 2008. Scientific Judgment and the Limits of Conflict-of-Interest Policies. Accountability in Research 15(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620701783725

Elliott, K. C. 2013. Financial Conflicts of Interest and Criteria for Research Credibility. Erkenntnis 79(S5): 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10670-013-9536-2

Elliott, K. C. 2016. Standardized Study Designs, Value Judgments, and Financial Conflicts of Interest in Research. Perspectives on Science 24(5): 529–551. https://doi.org/10.1162/POSC_a_00222

Elliott, K. C. 2019. Managing value‐laden judgements in regulatory science and risk assessment. Proceedings of the Third EFSA Scientific Conference: Science, Food and Society Guest Editors: Devos Y, Elliott KC and Hardy A. EFSA Journal 17. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170709

Ellison, G. 2018. Wolverine expert PFAS claims “highly misleading,” say NJ scientists. Mlive. https://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/2018/02/janet_k_anderson_pfas_integral.html

Fernández Pinto, M. 2019. Doubly disadvantaged: On the recruitment of diverse subjects for clinical trials in Latin America. Tapuya: Latin American Science, Technology and Society 2(1): 391–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2018.1556237

Fernández Pinto, M. 2021. Science and industry funding. In D. Ludwig; I. Koskinen; Z. Mncube; L. Poliseli; L. Reyes-Galindo (Eds.), Global Epistemologies and Philosophies of Science (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003027140

Garvey, G. J.; Anderson, J. K.; Goodrum, P. E.; Tyndall, K. H.; Cox, L. A.; Khatami, M.; Morales-Montor, J.; Schoeny, R. S.; Seed, J. G.; Tyagi, R. K.; Kirman, C. R.; Hays, S. M. 2023. Weight of evidence evaluation for chemical-induced immunotoxicity for PFOA and PFOS: Findings from an independent panel of experts. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 53(1): 34–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408444.2023.2194913

Glüge, J.; Scheringer, M.; Cousins, I. T.; DeWitt, J. C.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lohmann, R.; Ng, C. A.; Trier, X.; & Wang, Z. 2020. An overview of the uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 22(12): 2345–2373. https://doi.org/10.1039/D0EM00291G

Goldman, G.; Carlson, C.; Zhang, Y. 2015. Bad Chemistry: How the Chemical Industry’s Trade Association Undermines the Policies that Protect Us. Cambridge, MA: Union of Concerned Scientists.

Goodrum, P. E.; Anderson, J. K.; Luz, A. L.; Ansell, G. K. 2020. Application of a Framework for Grouping and Mixtures Toxicity Assessment of PFAS: A Closer Examination of Dose-Additivity Approaches. Toxicological Sciences 179(2): 262–278. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfaa123

Grandjean, P. 2018. Delayed discovery, dissemination, and decisions on intervention in environmental health: A case study on immunotoxicity of perfluorinated alkylate substances. Environmental Health 17(1): 62, s12940-018-0405-y. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-018-0405-y

Henry, B. J.; Carlin, J. P.; Hammerschmidt, J. A.; Buck, R. C.; Buxton, L. W.; Fiedler, H.; Seed, J.; Hernandez, O. 2018. A critical review of the application of polymer of low concern and regulatory criteria to fluoropolymers: Fluoropolymers PLC. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 14(3): 316–334. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.4035

Holman, B.; Bruner, J. 2017. Experimentation by Industrial Selection. Philosophy of Science 84(5): 1008–1019. https://doi.org/10.1086/694037

Holman, B.; Elliott, K. C. 2018. The promise and perils of industry-funded science. Philosophy Compass 13(11): e12544. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12544

How the American Chemistry Council Sowed Uncertainty about Formaldehyde Risks. 2017. Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-american-chemistry-council-sowed-uncertainty-about-formaldehyde-risks. Access 21 March 2024.

Intemann, K. 2022. Understanding the Problem of “Hype”: Exaggeration, Values, and Trust in Science. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 52(3): 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2020.45

Krafft, M. P.; Riess, J. G. 2015. Per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFASs): Environmental challenges. Current Opinion in Colloid & Interface Science 20(3): 192–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cocis.2015.07.004

Kwiatkowski, C. F.; Andrews, D. Q.; Birnbaum, L. S.; Bruton, T. A.; DeWitt, J. C.; Knappe, D. R. U.; Maffini, M. V.; Miller, M. F.; Pelch, K. E.; Reade, A.; Soehl, A.; Trier, X.; Venier, M.; Wagner, C. C.; Wang, Z.; Blum, A. 2020. Scientific Basis for Managing PFAS as a Chemical Class. Environmental Science & Technology Letters 7(8): 532–543. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.estlett.0c00255

Lerner, S. 2016, September 15. The Teflon Toxin Goes to China. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2016/09/15/the-teflon-toxin-goes-to-china/

Lerner, S. 2018a, February 23. Lawsuit Reveals How Paid Expert Helped 3M “Command the Science” on Dangerous Chemicals. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2018/02/23/3m-lawsuit-pfcs-pollution/

Lerner, S. 2018b, July 31. 3M Knew About the Dangers of PFOA and PFOS Decades Ago, Internal Documents Show. The Intercept. https://theintercept.com/2018/07/31/3m-pfas-minnesota-pfoa-pfos/

Lohmann, R.; Cousins, I. T.; DeWitt, J. C.; Glüge, J.; Goldenman, G.; Herzke, D.; Lindstrom, A. B.; Miller, M. F.; Ng, C. A.; Patton, S.; Scheringer, M.; Trier, X.; Wang, Z. 2020. Are Fluoropolymers Really of Low Concern for Human and Environmental Health and Separate from Other PFAS?. Environmental Science & Technology 54(20): 12820–12828. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.0c03244

Lundh, A.; Lexchin, J.; Mintzes, B.; Schroll, J. B.; Bero, L. 2017. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017(2). https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3

Lyons, C. 2007. Stain-resistant, nonstick, waterproof, and lethal: The hidden dangers of C8. Westport: Praeger.

Maffini, M. V.; Rayasam, S. D. G.; Axelrad, D. A.; Birnbaum, L. S.; Cooper, C.; Franjevic, S.; MacRoy, P. M.; Nachman, K. E.; Patisaul, H. B.; Rodgers, K. M.; Rossi, M. S.; Schettler, T.; Solomon, G. M.; Woodruff, T. J. 2023. Advancing the science on chemical classes. Environmental Health 21(1): 120. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00919-y

Michaels, D. 2020. The Triumph of Doubt: Dark Money and the Science of Deception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Miller, B. 2013. When is consensus knowledge based? Distinguishing shared knowledge from mere agreement. Synthese 190: 1293-1316.

Nascimento, R. A.; Nunoo, D. B. O.; Bizkarguenaga, E.; Schultes, L.; Zabaleta, I.; Benskin, J. P.; Spanó, S.; Leonel, J. 2018. Sulfluramid use in Brazilian agriculture: A source of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) to the environment. Environmental Pollution 242: 1436–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2018.07.122

Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible Reasoning. Cognitive Science 11(4): 481–518. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4

Richter, L.; Cordner, A.; Brown, P. 2018. Non-stick science: Sixty years of research and (in)action on fluorinated compounds. Social Studies of Science 48(5): 691–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312718799960

Richter, L.; Cordner, A.; Brown, P. 2021. Producing Ignorance Through Regulatory Structure: The Case of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Sociological Perspectives 64(4): 631–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121420964827

Stuckler, D.; Ruskin, G.; McKee, M. 2018. Complexity and conflicts of interest statements: A case-study of emails exchanged between Coca-Cola and the principal investigators of the International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle and the Environment (ISCOLE). Journal of Public Health Policy 39(1): 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-017-0095-7

Supran, G.; Oreskes, N. 2017. Assessing ExxonMobil’s climate change communications (1977–2014). Environmental Research Letters 12(8): 084019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

Velicer, C.; St. Helen, G.; Glantz, S. A. 2018. Tobacco papers and tobacco industry ties in regulatory toxicology and pharmacology. Journal of Public Health Policy 39(1): 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-017-0096-6

Volz, D. C.; Elliott, K. C. 2012. Mitigating Conflicts of Interest in Chemical Safety Testing. Environmental Science & Technology 46(15): 7937–7938. https://doi.org/10.1021/es3028296

Wagner, W. E.; Gold, S. C. 2022. Legal obstacles to toxic chemical research. Science 375(6577): 138–141. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abl4383

Wallington, T. J.; Andersen, M. P. S.; Nielsen, O. J. 2021. The case for a more precise definition of regulated PFAS. Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts 23(12): 1834–1838. https://doi.org/10.1039/D1EM00296A

Wang, Z.; DeWitt, J. C.; Higgins, C. P.; Cousins, I. T. 2017. A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)?. Environmental Science & Technology 51(5): 2508–2518. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.6b04806

Xie, F.; Zhou, T. 2022. Industry sponsorship bias in cost effectiveness analysis: Registry based analysis. BMJ 377: e069573. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2021-069573