Lobbying Firms Under Fire for Dual Roles in Pfas Regulation Battles
A recent investigation has uncovered that several prominent US lobbying firms are simultaneously working on both sides of the Pfas "forever chemicals" issue, sparking significant conflict of interest concerns. This dual representation is raising alarms that such activities may be impeding state-level efforts to regulate these hazardous substances, which are linked to severe health risks including cancer and birth defects.
Widespread Ethical Questions Emerge from State Records
The non-profit organization F-Minus conducted a detailed review of lobbying records across six states, revealing numerous instances where firms advocated for and against Pfas regulations concurrently. For example, the lobbying firm Holland & Knight represents the American Chemistry Council, a major opponent of Pfas regulations, while also lobbying for the American Cancer Society. In response to these findings, Holland & Knight defended its practices, stating that it adheres to rigorous ethics procedures and arguing that the report mischaracterizes its client relationships by assuming advocacy on every policy issue.
Similarly, in Oregon, lobbyist Rocky Dallum of Tonkon Torp lobbied against a bill to ban Pfas in consumer goods while simultaneously advocating for the Oregon Bioscience Association on funding for rare diseases screening in newborns. This juxtaposition is particularly troubling given that in-utero Pfas exposure is associated with decreased immunity, neurotoxic effects, and rare cancers.
Financial Incentives and Public Health Impacts
James Browning, executive director of F-Minus and a former lobbyist, highlighted that industry and lobbyists often succeed in killing public health bills or pushing for "half measures," all while continuing to receive payment. He noted that any reputational damage from opposing Pfas regulations is often mitigated by the positive work these firms do for schools or cancer groups, creating a "halo effect" that may be undeserved when conflicts exist.
The review identified 26 healthcare systems, 11 public school systems, 15 wildlife groups, and 132 local governments that share lobbying firms with Pfas manufacturers or trade groups like the American Chemistry Council and Cookware Sustainability Alliance. These lobbyists operate across 36 states, complicating efforts to track their activities due to weak disclosure laws in many jurisdictions.
Case Studies Highlight Systemic Issues
In California, lobbying around two Pfas-related bills illustrates how dual roles can slow regulatory efforts while enriching firms. KP Public Affairs made nearly $275,000 lobbying both for and against SB 682, which proposed banning Pfas in cookware and other products. Meanwhile, Public Policy Advocates lobbied for a cleanup fund while opposing the consumer products ban on behalf of the American Chemistry Council. Governor Newsom ultimately vetoed the ban but approved the cleanup fund, a decision that critics argue will perpetuate water contamination.
Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist with Public Citizen, explained that while state and federal laws do not prohibit lobbying on both sides of an issue, firms can face legal liability if they share information between clients. He added that such practices undermine credibility, as firms typically seek recognition as experts in specific advocacy positions.
Broader Implications and Calls for Action
The report also notes that Pfas harm extends to wildlife, with groups like the Marine Mammal Center and Salmon For All sharing lobbyists with the American Chemistry Council. In Pennsylvania, where schools are required to test drinking water for Pfas, four Philadelphia schools have violated state standards, and the city shares the lobbying firm Holland & Knight with the American Chemistry Council.
Following widespread contamination in Maine, the state enacted a ban on non-essential Pfas uses, but the Preti Flaherty firm is lobbying for exemptions on behalf of the Cookware Sustainability Alliance while also representing the Portland Water District, which is suing Pfas manufacturers over contaminated water.
The report urges groups and governments to sever ties with conflicted firms, drawing parallels to past actions against tobacco industry lobbyists. As Browning emphasized, the goal is to pressure these firms to choose a side—either supporting public health or the chemical industry—to ensure clearer advocacy and protect communities from ongoing Pfas threats.
