There are nearly 15,000 of them, and some claim they increase the risk of health issues, such as cancer and asthma. Called per- and Polyfluorinated Substances, or PFAS chemicals, they can be found in 99% of everyone’s blood and they are almost impossible to avoid, since they are in everything from nonstick cookware to shampoo.

In 2022, Colorado enacted its first legislation on PFAS, establishing regulations prohibiting the sale or distribution of certain products containing intentionally added PFAS, such as carpets, rugs, food packaging, cosmetics, and oil and gas products. This year’s bill, Senate Bill 081, looks to expand on the 2022 restrictions, encompassing additional items, such as water-resistant outdoor apparel, cleaning products, dental floss, and ski wax. 

Supporters of the bill emphasize health risks posed by these chemicals, while others worry about the lack of alternatives to, among others, firefighting foam.

According to the bill’s sponsor, Sen. Lisa Cutter, D-Littleton, PFAS were first introduced in the 1940s but that experts have known about the dangers they pose since the 1980s. She added that the Environmental Protection Agency recently revised its acceptable limit on PFAS to four parts per trillion, which is the equivalent of a single drop in five Olympic-sized pools’ worth of water. While Cutter acknowledged that PFAS are so widely used because they’re inexpensive and widely available, she argued that the environmental and health risks they pose are not worth it, especially in a state like Colorado that is already struggling with its water supply. 

“Everyday products should not poison a water supply that’s under pressure from increased demands in our state and climate-driven drought,” she said. “We are already shouldering the cost of cleanup, and prevention is better and cheaper. We envision a future in which everyday products in our homes, our schools, and our workplaces are free of toxic chemicals.”

Madhvi Chittoor, a 12-year-old climate activist and UN Child Advisor, highlighted the high costs associated with removing and destroying PFAS. Because PFAS molecules have a chain of linked carbon and fluorine atoms, one of the strongest bonds found in chemistry, they are extremely resistant to degradation. 

“These types of PFAS bans like Senate Bill 081 are super urgent in order to not keep compounding the amount of PFAS in the environment and associated health risks for my generation and future generations, and in fact, for all living beings of all generations,” she said, adding that the cost to remove and destroy a single pound of PFAS could be up to $50 million. 

While all witnesses in committee supported the initiative to minimize PFAS chemicals, some expressed concern over the absence of viable alternatives for certain products. For instance, Class B firefighting foam, which contains PFAS, is the only widely-available option for extinguishing petroleum-based fires.

According to Angie Binder of the Colorado Petroleum Association, a fluorine-free foam, known as F3, does not contain PFAS, but it has not been proven safe or effective. She said the bill should make an exemption for class B firefighting foam until companies can use F3. 

Chris Correnti of AGC Americas spoke of fluoropolymers, a type of PFAS found in things like pacemakers, wire insulation for electric vehicles and airplanes, and windmills, saying all should be excluded from the bill because they are not harmful to humans.

Shawn Swearingen of the American Chemistry Council agreed with Correnti, calling the bill’s definition of PFAS “overly broad and nonscientific”. 

“All PFAS are not the same, and it’s not scientifically accurate nor appropriate to group all PFAS together,” he said. “(The bill) does not take into account toxicity, durability, nor exposure ranges across the compounds.”

An amendment was made to the bill to eliminate the repeal of the exemption of class B firefighting foam, and Cutter said there will be more amendments made by the time the bill gets to the Senate floor for second reading.

“When we absolutely know that something is toxic and harmful to humans, our health, and the water, it’s imperative that we act to do something to protect those things,” she said. 

The bill passed through the committee and will go before the Senate Committee of the Whole.