Home Articles Lawsuits Being Filed Are Linking Widely-Used Firefighting Foam With Cancer – Opinion

Lawsuits Being Filed Are Linking Widely-Used Firefighting Foam With Cancer – Opinion

Crew foaming YCC dormitory at Mammoth Hot Springs during 1988 Yellowstone fire, image taken by Jim Peaco, September 10, 1988 and retrieved from the following page [1] of the Yellowstone Digital Slide Files archives which are all in the public domain [2

Lawsuits are currently being filed all across the country alleging that former firefighters have developed cancer after being exposed to a type of firefighting foam known as aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF).

AFFF is designed to put out petroleum-based fires and has been used for decades. AFFF contains per-and substances (PFAS), which lawsuits allege have been linked with cancer. AFFF lawsuits are particularly focusing on the PFAS chemicals known as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS).

Lawsuits claim that once PFAS enter the body, they bind to blood proteins and remain in the blood for a long time, accumulating in the blood and body with each additional exposure. Lawsuits allege this presents a major health problem, referring to PFAS as “highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals.”

Lawsuits claim AFFF makers failed to warn about cancer risk

Faith Based Events

Lawsuits being filed against AFFF manufacturers allege that AFFF makers knew or should have known that PFAS were dangerous to humans, yet failed to warn the public about this danger. Lawsuits claim that AFFF manufacturers knew by at least 1970 that PFOA was toxic to the liver, adrenals and testes of numerous species of lab animals and that PFOA’s chemical structure made it resistant to degradation.

AFFF makers have known since at least 1980, according to lawsuits, that PFOA and PFOS can bind to blood proteins in animals and humans, persist there for a long time, and accumulate with additional exposures.

Lawsuits imply AFFF makers should have warned the public at this point that AFFF might cause cancer in humans.

Lawsuits also claim that AFFF makers, including at least DuPont, have known since at least 1990 that their workers exposed to PFOA saw higher cancer rates than their other workers. 3M, according to lawsuits, also knew its workers exposed to PFOA had elevated cancer rates by at least 2010.

It has been known by at least 3M and DuPont since at least 2000, according to lawsuits, that PFOA not only caused testicular tumors in rats but liver tumors and pancreatic tumors as well.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other entities eventually started asking AFFF makers to stop making or using certain PFAS due to health concerns. AFFF makers, according to lawsuits, then started using newer types of PFAS in AFFF, including short-chain PFAS.

Lawsuits claim that, despite all of the evidence suggesting PFAS can cause cancer in humans, AFFF makers, to this day, deny that PFAS in human blood presents any health risk to people, and continue to claim that their products are safe.

AFFF lawsuits make multiple allegations

AFFF lawsuits being filed all across the country are throwing multiple allegations at AFFF makers, including:

Negligence: Negligence is failing to be reasonably careful to prevent harm. Lawsuits argue that reasonably careful companies would design safe products, adequately test product safety, and warn others that their products are dangerous when they discover dangers associated with their products.

Defective design: Lawsuits allege AFFF is defective by design since the PFAS chemicals in it can cause cancer even when the products are manufactured and used correctly.

Failure to warn: Lawsuits seek to hold AFFF makers strictly liable for damages caused by AFFF, arguing the manufacturers knew or should have known that AFFF could cause cancer but failed to warn the public about the cancer risk.

Battery: Lawsuits across the country are accusing AFFF makers of battery, claiming that the nonconsensual entry of a dangerous chemical into the bodies of firefighters constitutes an unlawful, harmful and offensive physical invasion of their bodies, thus constituting battery under the law.

Fraudulent concealment: AFFF makers have “knowingly made false claims about the safety” of their AFFF products, “fraudulently and affirmatively” concealing the defective nature of AFFF from the public, according to lawsuits.

U.S. House, multiple states taking action to protect public from PFAS

At least 26 states had enacted or proposed PFAS-related legislation as of November 2020, including Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.

U.S. House representatives, on April 13, introduced the PFAS Action Act of 2021, which would require the EPA to enact numerous regulatory actions regarding PFAS, including testing of all PFAS for human toxicity, and designating PFOA as a “hazardous substance.”


Author bio:  Jeffrey Nadrich is the managing partner of Nadrich & Cohen Accident Injury Lawyers, a personal injury law firm representing victims of AFFF exposure who have developed cancer.


Disclaimer

The information contained in South Florida Reporter is for general information purposes only.
The South Florida Reporter assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the contents of the Service.
In no event shall the South Florida Reporter be liable for any special, direct, indirect, consequential, or incidental damages or any damages whatsoever, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tort, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Service or the contents of the Service. The Company reserves the right to make additions, deletions, or modifications to the contents of the Service at any time without prior notice.
The Company does not warrant that the Service is free of viruses or other harmful components