Tag: public health

Senate Subcommittee Holds Hearing on Public Health Impacts of PFAS Exposures

On December 5, 2024, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight held a hearing on “Examining the Public Health Impacts of PFAS Exposures.” The Subcommittee heard from the following witnesses (written testimony is not available at this time):

  • Laurel Schaider, Ph.D., Senior Scientist, Environmental Chemistry and Engineering, Silent Spring Institute;
  • Sue Fenton, Ph.D., Director of the Center for Human Health and the Environment, Professor of Biological Sciences, North Carolina State University; and
  • Michael D. Larrañaga, Ph.D., P.E., President and Managing Principal, R.E.M. Risk Consultants, on behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA).

Schaider testified that there needs to be a comprehensive strategy to address all per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including fluorinated polymers, as a class. Schaider described how the manufacture of PFAS can expose workers and nearby communities to PFAS and how the disposal of products that contain PFAS can contaminate the environment. Fenton offered a number of suggestions for possible legislation, including: limiting the production and use of PFAS; requiring health insurance companies to pay for PFAS testing in susceptible populations; phasing out PFAS in firefighting foams (FFF); requiring manufacturers to provide standards in purified forms of their PFAS; and requiring PFAS manufacturers to fund the development of safe destruction methods for PFAS. Larrañaga stated that PFAS are part of our critical infrastructure and are used in the manufacture of products such as semiconductors, electronics, medical equipment, pharmaceuticals, herbicides, insecticides, plastics, airplanes, automobiles, and buildings. Larrañaga urged that the use of PFAS be balanced against the risk of alternatives.

The hearing included discussion of the use of PFAS in consumer products, including non-stick pans and waterproof mascara, versus other products, such as cell phones and semiconductors. Schaider stated that the issue is not only non-essential uses of PFAS, as in cookware, but also the lifecycle of products that contain PFAS. There may be environmental contamination in communities where PFAS are manufactured, workers may be exposed during manufacture, and at the end of the lifecycle of the product, the PFAS could end up in a landfill or in emissions when incinerated.

During the hearing, Senator Roger Wicker (R-MS) asked whether all PFAS cause the same level of harm and noted the common definition of PFAS as “any compound containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” Larrañaga responded that although fluoropolymers contain one fully fluorinated carbon atom, they are less bioavailable than other PFAS of concern. There could be an issue if heating them, but by removing that use from the marketplace, instead of banning all PFAS, there would be no adverse effect to critical infrastructure or defense. Schaider stated that, to her knowledge, no PFAS is completely safe. According to Schaider, newer PFAS replacement chemicals raise many of the same health concerns. Schaider suggested that an essential uses framework could be used to identify where PFAS uses can be reduced immediately.

The hearing included discussion of the best way to move forward. Fenton noted that even for essential uses, there is potential exposure to the waste and that proper disposal is important. According to Fenton, labeling products with intentionally added PFAS would allow consumers to make more informed choices. Subcommittee Chair Jeff Merkley (D-OR) suggested that there may be product categories where labeling is more important because the contamination pathway is more significant. Merkley concluded that Congress should continue to explore how to reduce the risk of PFAS to citizens.

There is much discussion, seemingly everywhere, about PFAS, but no easy answers to the questions the Subcommittee considered. In a perfect world, PFAS would be comprehensively addressed as Schaider recommends, and all the unknowns about disposal, exposure, and toxicity would be known. But we do not live in that world, and many hard questions remain to be answered. The Subcommittee gets points for raising key issues, but did little to move the needle.

All eyes are now on the new kids in town — the incoming Trump Administration and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator-Designate Lee Zeldin. We expect in 2025 a decidedly different focus on PFAS, but beyond this, much remains to be seen.

©2024 Bergeson & Campbell, P.C.
For more on the PFAS, visit the NLR Environmental Energy Resources section

Cannabis Rescheduling: HHS Findings and Legal Implications

On August 29, 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a groundbreaking recommendation to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – that cannabis should be rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This recommendation was made pursuant to President Biden’s request that the Secretary of HHS and the Attorney General initiate a process to review how cannabis is scheduled under federal law. In recent days, the unredacted 252-page analysis supporting the August recommendation was released pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act request. While the DEA is presently reviewing HHS’s recommendation and has final authority to schedule a drug under the CSA, it is ultimately bound by HHS’s recommendations on scientific and medical matters.

Why does this matter? Cannabis1 has been a Schedule I substance since the CSA was enacted in 1971. Substances are controlled under the CSA by placement on one of five lists, Schedules I through V. Schedule I controlled substances are subject to the most stringent controls and have no current accepted medical use. As a result, it is illegal under federal law to produce, dispense, or possess cannabis except in the context of federally approved scientific studies. Violations may result in large fines and imprisonment, including mandatory minimum sentences. Comparatively, Schedule III substances are considered to have less abuse potential than Schedule I and II substances, and have a currently accepted medical use in the United States.

In recent years, nearly all the states within the U.S. have revised their laws to permit medical cannabis use. And 24 states, as well as the District of Columbia, have eliminated certain criminal penalties for recreational cannabis use by adults. However, under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. Thus, states cannot actually legalize cannabis use without congressional or executive action, and all unauthorized activities under Schedule I involving cannabis are federal crimes anywhere in the United States.2

Notable Findings in HHS’s Recommendation

For HHS to recommend that the DEA change cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, HHS had to make three specific findings: 1) cannabis has a lower potential for abuse than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II; 2) cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the U.S.; and 3) abuse of cannabis may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. HHS considered eight factors to make those findings, some of which include: cannabis’s actual or relative potential for abuse; the state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug; the scope, duration, and significance of abuse; and what, if any, risk there is to public health. The unredacted analysis provides further insight into HHS’s determination to make the forementioned findings.

CANNABIS HAS A POTENTIAL FOR ABUSE LESS THAN THE DRUGS OR OTHER SUBSTANCES IN SCHEDULES I AND II.

To evaluate cannabis’s potential for abuse,3 HHS compared the harms associated with cannabis abuse to the harms associated with other substances, such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), and alcohol.4 HHS reported that evidence shows some individuals take cannabis in amounts sufficient to create a health hazard to themselves and the safety of other individuals and the community. However, HHS also reported evidence showing the vast majority of cannabis users are using cannabis in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes for themselves or others. From 2015 to 2021, the utilization-adjusted rate of adverse outcomes involving cannabis was consistently lower than the respective utilization-adjusted rates of adverse outcomes involving heroin, cocaine, and other comparators. Further, cannabis was the lowest-ranking group for serious medical outcomes, including death. Overall, the data indicated that cannabis produced fewer negative outcomes than Schedule I, Schedule II drugs, and, in some cases, alcohol.

CANNABIS HAS A CURRENTLY ACCEPTED MEDICAL USE IN TREATMENT IN THE UNITED STATES

To determine whether cannabis has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU) in the U.S., HHS evaluated a two-part standard: 1) whether “[t]here exists widespread, current experience with medical use of the substance by [healthcare providers] operating in accordance with implemented jurisdiction-authorized programs, where medical use is recognized by entities that regulate the practice of medicine”; and 2) whether “[t]here exists some credible scientific support for at least one of the medical uses for which Part 1 is met.”

Under Part 1, HHS confirmed that more than 30,000 healthcare providers across 43 U.S. jurisdictions are authorized to recommend the medical use of cannabis for more than six million registered patients for at least 15 medical conditions. The Part 1 findings, therefore, supported an assessment under Part 2. Under Part 2, HHS reported that, based on the totality of the available data, there exists some credible scientific support for the medical use of cannabis. Specifically, credible scientific support described at least some therapeutic cannabis uses for anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting (e.g., chemotherapy-induced), and pain.

Overall, while HHS reported that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use in the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) underscored that such a finding does not mean that the FDA has approved cannabis as safe and effective for marketing as a drug in interstate commerce under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

ABUSE OF CANNABIS MAY LEAD TO MODERATE OR LOW PHYSICAL DEPENDENCE OR HIGH PSYCHOLOGICAL DEPENDENCE.

Lastly, HHS concluded that research indicated that chronic, but not acute, use of cannabis can produce both psychic and physical dependence in humans. However, while cannabis “can produce psychic dependence in some individuals,” HHS emphasized that “the likelihood of serious outcomes is low, suggesting that high psychological dependence does not occur in most individuals who use marijuana.”

Legal Ramifications of New Scheduling

Changing cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III may potentially allow cannabis to be lawfully dispensed by prescription5 and states’ medical cannabis programs may now be able to comply with the CSA. However, it would not make state laws legalizing recreational cannabis use in compliance with federal law without other legal changes by Congress or the executive branch. Under the change, medical cannabis users may be eligible for public housing, immigrant and nonimmigrant visas, and the purchase and possession of firearms. They may also face fewer barriers to federal employment and eligibility to serve in the military. Researchers would face less regulatory controls, and the DEA would no longer set production quota limitations for cannabis. Because the prohibition on business deductions in Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code only applies to Schedule I and II substances of the CSA, changing cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III would allow cannabis businesses to deduct business expenses on federal tax filing.

Importantly, some criminal penalties for CSA violations depend on the schedule of the substance. Thus, if cannabis were to be reclassified as a Schedule III substance, some criminal penalties for CSA violations would no longer apply or be significantly reduced. However, CSA penalties that specifically apply to cannabis, such as quantity-based mandatory minimum sentences, would not change under a new rescheduling.

Many advocates consider HHS’s findings a step in the right direction. Specifically, supporters consider the findings further evidence that cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether and regulated akin to tobacco and alcohol (referred to as descheduling). Given the momentum of cannabis legalization across U.S. states and breakthroughs in the medical and scientific advantages of cannabis, Congressional or Executive legalization, or – at very least – descheduling of cannabis may be on the horizon.

1 The CSA classifies the cannabis plant and its derivatives as “marijuana.” The CSA definition of marijuana excludes (1) products that meet the legal definition of hemp and (2) the mature stalks of the cannabis plant; the sterilized seeds of the plant; and fibers, oils, and other products made from the stalks and seeds.

2 Congress has granted the states some leeway in the distribution and use of medical marijuana by passing an appropriations rider preventing the Department of Justice from using taxpayer funds to prevent states from “implementing their own laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana.” Courts have interpreted this as a prohibition on federal prosecution of state-legal activities involving medical cannabis.

3 In its report, HHS defined “abuse” to mean the “intentional, non-therapeutic use of a drug to obtain a desired psychological or physiological effect.”

4 Alcohol is not a scheduled controlled substance, but was used as a comparison because of its extensive availability and use in the U.S., which is also observed for the nonmedical use of cannabis.

5 Although the FDA has approved some drugs derived from cannabis, cannabis is not presently an FDA-approved drug.

Copyright © 2024, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more on Cannabis, visit the NLR Biotech, Food, Drug section.

The End of the COVID Public Health Emergency and Its Effect on Employee Benefit Plans

The COVID-19 public health emergency ends on May 11, 2023. The emergency resulted in two big changes to welfare plans: the relaxation of certain notification and timing requirements, and the requirement for plans to cover COVID testing and vaccination at no cost to plan participants. While the public health emergency ends May 11, 2023, plans have a grace period until July 11 to take certain actions and come into compliance with the normal rules.

Plan Sponsor Requirements

Before the grace period ends, plan sponsors will generally need to follow the rules that existed before COVID. Among the most important of these rules are the requirements for plan sponsors to:

  • Timely provide all notices, including those for HIPAA and COBRA.
  • Review COVID-related coverage under their employee assistance programs (EAPs) to determine if such coverage would be considered “significant medical care,” which can result in additional reporting and compliance obligations.
  • Review telehealth options to ensure they are properly integrated and provided by an entity that can comply with the post-COVID requirements. Telehealth rules were substantially relaxed during COVID. With telehealth now expected and utilized by more participants, getting telehealth right is more crucial than before.

Plan Sponsor Decisions

With the end of the public health emergency, plan sponsors must also make several important decisions with respect to their employee benefit plans:

  • Whether testing will continue free of charge or will be subject to cost sharing.
  • Whether non-preventative care vaccines for COVID will continue to be free of charge.
  • Whether costs for certain COVID-related services will continue to be posted.

As they are mostly based on what costs the plan sponsor or plan will cover going forward, these plan sponsor decisions are largely business-related. In the absence of a choice by the plan sponsor, the insurance provider will likely make a default choice. The important legal consideration is that the plan documents and employee communications should be consistent and accurately reflect the plan sponsor’s decisions.

Participant Requirements

In addition to the changes for plan sponsors, the end of the public health emergency will result in the reinstatement of a number of rules applicable to participants. Participants will need to:

Follow the HIPAA Special Enrollment timing rules.

Elect COBRA within the 60-day window for elections.

Make all COBRA payments timely.

Timely notify the plan of disabilities and qualifying events under COBRA.

Follow the timing limitations of their plans and insurance policies regarding filing claims, appeals, and external reviews.

Next Steps

First, plan sponsors should decide what COVID-related coverage will remain fully paid by the plan, if any. Some insurance companies are already starting to communicate with participants, and maintaining a consistent message will avoid unnecessary problems.

Second, plan sponsors should review their EAP and telehealth coverages for compliance with the rules that will soon be in effect. To the extent necessary, plan sponsors should update the documentation for their plans.

Finally, plan sponsors should consider a voluntary reminder communication to participants. Many rules have been relaxed over the last two years or so, and participants may be confused regarding the rules. A reminder may save stress for participants and those administering the plan, and will also serve to document the plan sponsor’s intention to properly follow the terms of the plan.

© 2023 Varnum LLP

For more healthcare legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

EU PFAS Ban Should Raise U.S. Corporate Concerns

On February 7, 2023, the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) unveiled a 200 page proposal that would ban the use of any PFAS in the EU. While the proposal was anticipated by many, the scope of the ban nonetheless drew reactions from a myriad of sectors – from environmentalists to scientists to corporations. U.S. based companies that have any industrial or business interests in the EU must absolutely pay close attention to the EU PFAS ban and consider the impact on business interests.

EU PFAS Ban Proposal

The EU PFAS ban currently proposed would take effect 18 months from the date of enactment; however, the ECHA is contemplating phased-in restrictions of up to 12 years for uses that the group considers challenging to replace in certain applications. The proposal is only the inception of the ECHA regulatory process, which next turns to a public comment period that opens on March 22, 2023 and will run for at least six months. ECHA’s scientific committees to review the proposal and provide feedback. Given the magnitude of comments expected and the likely hurdles that the ECHA will face in finalizing the proposal, it is not expected that the proposal would be finalized prior to 2025.

The EU PFAS ban seeks to prohibit the use of over 10,000 PFAS types, excluding only a sub-class of PFAS that have been deemed “fully degradable.” The proposal indicates: “…the restriction proposal is tailored to address the manufacture, placing on the market, as well as the use of PFASs as such and as constituents in other substances, in mixtures and in articles above a certain concentration. All uses of PFASs are covered by this restriction proposal, regardless of whether they have been specifically assessed by the Dossier Submitters and/or are mentioned in this report or not, unless a specific derogation has been formulated.” (emphasis added) Several specific types of uses and consumer product applicability would be included in the first phase of the proposed ban, including cosmetics, food packaging, clothing and cookware. This first phase of the ban implementation would include uses where alternatives are known, but not yet widely available, which is the reason why the first phase would take effect within 5 years. The second phase of the ban anticipates a 12 year period of time for ban implementation and encompasses uses where alternatives to PFAS are not currently known. Significantly for U.S. business, the proposed ban includes imported goods.

Impact On U.S. Companies

In 2022, U.S. companies exported just shy of $350 billion in goods to the EU. In many instances, companies do not deliberately, intentionally, or knowingly add or utilize PFAS in finished products that are sent to the EU. However, PFAS may be used in manufacturing processes that inadvertently contaminate goods with PFAS. In addition, many U.S. companies rely on overseas companies for supply chain sourcing. Quite commonly, supply chain sources outside of the U.S. do not voluntarily provide chemical composition information for components or goods that they supply. Inquiring of those companies for such information, or certifications that the good contain no PFAS, can be extremely difficult. Getting overseas companies to provide such information often proves impossible and even when certifications are made, the devil may be in the details in terms of what is actually being certified. For example, certifying that goods contain “no hazardous substances” or “no hazardous PFAS” sound reassuring, but by what measure of “hazardous” is the statement being made? Under what country’s regulations? Using which scientific definition? The result of all of these complexities may be that many U.S. based companies need to test their products themselves, which not only increases time to market issues and financial costs associated with production, but also risks to the companies doing business in the U.S. that they may open themselves up to environmental pollution or personal injury lawsuits by conducting such testing. In addition, alternatives may not be as cost effective as PFAS, which impacts businesses and has the potential trickle-down impact of passing some of the costs on to consumers.

While debate continues in the U.S. as to the scientific validity of the “whole class” approach to regulating PFAS (of which there are over 12,000 types according to the EPA), the EU PFAS ban leapfrogs the U.S. debate stage and goes directly to proposing a regulation that would embrace such a “whole class” regulatory scheme. Without a doubt, chemical manufacturers, industrial and manufacturing companies, and some in the science community are expected to strenuously oppose such an approach to regulations for PFAS. The underlying arguments will follow ones advanced and debated already in the U.S. – i.e., not all chemicals act identically, nor have the vast majority of PFAS been shown to date to present health concerns. Proper scientific method does not permit sweeping attributions of testing on legacy PFAS like PFOA and PFOS to be extrapolated and applied to all PFAS. The EU’s response to this via their proposal is that the costs of remediating PFAS from the environment are significant enough that it warrants regulating PFAS as a class to avoid costly, decades-long, and potentially repetitive remediation work in the EU.

Conclusions

It is of the utmost importance for businesses to evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate these compounds in the U.S. and abroad. One major point of contention among members of various industries is whether to regulate PFAS as a class or as individual compounds.  While each PFAS compound has a unique chemical makeup and impacts the environment and the human body in different ways, some groups argue PFAS should be regulated together as a class because they interact with each other in the body, thereby resulting in a collective impact. Other groups argue that the individual compounds are too diverse and that regulating them as a class would be over restrictive for some chemicals and not restrictive enough for others.

Companies should remain informed so they do not get caught off guard. States are increasingly passing PFAS product bills that differ in scope. For any manufacturers, especially those who sell goods overseas, it is important to understand how the various standards among countries will impact them, whether PFAS is regulated as individual compounds or as a class. Conducting regular self-audits for possible exposure to PFAS risk and potential regulatory violations can result in long term savings for companies and should be commonplace in their own risk assessment.

©2023 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.
For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review

A COVID Surge in China Results in Renewed Restrictions for Travel to the United States

Effective January 5 (at 12:01am, Eastern Standard Time), all passengers inbound from China, Hong Kong and Macau, or who were in the country in the 10 days prior to their departure to the United States, must show a negative PCR or monitored antigen test in order to board flights to the United States. In addition, the same requirement will apply for those passengers who were physically present in China within the 10 days prior to flying through South Korea’s Incheon International Airport, Toronto Pearson International, and Vancouver International.

Background:

Amid concerns over lack of transparency around COVID case data and loosening of COVID-related restrictions, China is facing their largest coronavirus outbreak since the start of the pandemic. The large surge of cases could potentially infect upwards of 800 million people over the next few months. Such a spike in infections over a very short period increases the chances of a new variant emerging, and with the risk of new mutations come the risks of heightened transmission and death rates.

In response, several countries including the United States, Japan, Italy, India, South Korea and Taiwan are implementing measures for travelers to both limit the spread of infection and to improve early detection of new variants. As of January 5, 2023, in order to enter the United States either directly or indirectly from China, Hong Kong and Macau, all passengers over the age of 2, regardless of nationality or vaccination status, must show evidence of a negative PCR or antigen test taken within two days at the departure gate. The only exception will be for those who have recently tested positive. Those who have had COVID-19 in the 90 days prior to their travel to the United States may present documentation of recovery from COVID-19 in lieu of a negative test result.

In addition to the steps taken to specifically protect against those who test positive while traveling from China to the United States, the CDC is also expanding its Traveler Genomic Surveillance program (TGS) to additional airports. TGS, run by the Travelers’ Health Branch at the Center for Disease Control, tests international travelers to detect new variants entering the country and to fill in gaps in global surveillance. During the early days of the Omicron surge, TGS detected two Omicron subvariants weeks before they were reported elsewhere. As part of the program, arriving international travelers volunteer to participate and anonymously provide nasal swabs that are then sent for testing to allow for detection of multiple variants as well as viral characterization to help provide information on a variant’s transmissibility, virulence, and response to current treatments or vaccines.

As the case counts and variants evolve and increase, so, too, must the guidelines around international travel and efforts to control the spread. Before making any international travel plans, make sure to double-check the guidelines in place for each intended destination, prepare for delays and disruption, and continually monitor reliable news sources for updates.

Listen to this post: Here

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP.
For more Coronavirus Legal News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

REI PFAS Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Continues Trend of Similar Lawsuits

On October 28, 2022, a PFAS consumer fraud class action lawsuit was filed in Washington against REI over alleged PFAS content in various articles of waterproof clothing sold by the company. The REI PFAS consumer fraud lawsuit is but the latest in a growing line of PFAS lawsuits that allege that certain consumer goods contain PFAS, that the products or company’s values were marketed as healthy or environmentally friendly, and that consumers would not have purchased the products if they knew that the products contained PFAS.

As we predicted in early 2021, the increased attention on PFAS content in consumer goods in the scientific community and media presented significant risks to various industries, including the apparel and cosmetics industry, and our prediction was that the developments would lead to a significant number of lawsuits alleging consumer fraud. Consumer goods industries, insurers, and investment companies interested in the consumer goods vertical with niche interest in cosmetics companies must pay careful attention to the cosmetics lawsuits and the increasing trend of lawsuits targeting the industry.

REI PFAS Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

On October 28, 2022, plaintiffs Jacob Krakauer and Joyce Rockwood filed a lawsuit in Washington federal court seeking a proposed class action against REI. The lawsuit alleges that REI markets the company and its products as environmentally friendly and sustainable. Further, the lawsuit cites to statements made by REI that the company is taking proactive steps with respect to chemical use in its products to argue that such statements were false, misleading or induced consumers to purchase products when the presence of PFAS in the products was not disclosed.

In the Complaint, plaintiffs allege the following counts against REI:

  • Violation of state consumer protection laws and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

  • Breach of warranty (implied and express)

  • Fraud (actual and constructive)

  • Fraudulent inducement

  • Money had and received

  • Fraudulent omission or concealment

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation

  • Negligent misrepresentation

  • Unjust enrichment

  • Negligent failure to warn

The plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class action lawsuit, with subclasses defined as consumers n Washington and Arizona. In addition, the lawsuit seeks damages, fees, costs, the establishment of medical monitoring, and a jury trial.

Just the Beginning For Consumer Products Companies

With studies underway, legislation pending that targets consumer goods, and increasing media reporting on PFAS in consumer goods and concerns over human health, product manufacturers should be increasingly wary of lawsuits similar to the REI lawsuit being filed against them. There are an increasing number of PFAS consumer fraud cases being filed, with some of the below as representative of recent trends:

  • Cosmetics industry:

    • Brown v. Cover Girl, New York (April 1, 2022)

    • Anderson v. Almay, New York (April 1, 2022)

    • Rebecca Vega v. L’Oreal, New Jersey (April 8, 2022)

    • Spindel v. Burt’s Bees, California (March 25, 2022)

    • Hicks and Vargas v. L’Oreal, New York (March 9, 2022)

    • Davenport v. L’Oreal, California (February 22, 2022)

  • Food packaging industry:

    • Richburg v. Conagra Brands, Illinois (May 6, 2022)

    • Ruiz v. Conagra Brands, Illinois (May 6, 2022)

    • Hamman v. Cava Group, California (April 27, 2022)

    • Azman Hussain v. Burger King, California (April 11, 2022)

    • Little v. NatureStar, California (April 8, 2022)

    • Larry Clark v. McDonald’s, Illinois (March 28, 2022)

  • Feminine hygiene products:

    • Gemma Rivera v. Knix Wear Inc., California (April 4, 2022)

    • Blenis v. Thinx, Inc., Massachusetts (June 18, 2021)

    • Destini Canan v. Thinx Inc., California (November 12, 2020)

As the above is indicative of, several major companies now find themselves embroiled in litigation focused on PFAS false advertising, consumer protection violations, and deceptive statements made in marketing and ESG reports. The lawsuits may well serve as test cases for plaintiffs’ bar to determine whether similar lawsuits will be successful in any (or all) of the fifty states in this country. Companies must consider the possibility of needing to defend lawsuits involving plaintiffs in all fifty states for products that contain PFAS.

It should be noted that these lawsuits would only touch on the marketing, advertising, ESG reporting, and consumer protection type of issues. Separate products lawsuits could follow that take direct aim at obtaining damages for personal injury for plaintiffs from consumer products. In addition, environmental pollution lawsuits could seek damage for diminution of property value, cleanup costs, and PFAS filtration systems if drinking water cleanup is required.

Conclusion

It is of the utmost importance that businesses along the whole supply chain in the consumer products industry evaluate their PFAS risk. Public health and environmental groups urge legislators to regulate PFAS at an ever-increasing pace. Similarly, state level EPA enforcement action is increasing at a several-fold rate every year. Now, the first wave of lawsuits take direct aim at the consumer products industry. Companies that did not manufacture PFAS, but merely utilized PFAS in their manufacturing processes, are therefore becoming targets of costly enforcement actions at rates that continue to multiply year over year. Lawsuits are also filed monthly by citizens or municipalities against companies that are increasingly not PFAS chemical manufacturers.

For more Environmental Law news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

Canada Announces Removal of COVID-19 Border Entry Requirements

The Government of Canada announced, on Monday, September 26, 2022, that after Friday, September 30, 2022, all requirements related to COVID-19 for entering Canada will expire. These include:

  • Providing proof of vaccination and other health information;
  • Mandatory usage of the ArriveCAN application;
  • Pre- or on-arrival testing and/or screening requirements;
  • Random testing at airports;
  • Monitoring and reporting if one develops COVID-19 symptoms;
  • Quarantine and isolation requirements.

As a result, as of September 30, 2022, persons entering Canada would still be required to follow local public health guidelines, where applicable. The removal of measures applies to all forms of travel, including by air, land (including rail), and sea, whether internationally bound or domestic.

Many of these requirements have been in place since early 2020, during the onset of the pandemic. Employers with employees traveling into Canada can be assured that such measures related to COVID-19 will no longer apply as of October 1, 2022. It is important to note that the Government of Canada did leave open the possibility of re-imposing measures if the situation regarding COVID-19 is seen as requiring it.

For more Coronavirus News, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Wendy’s E. Coli Outbreak Lawsuits

Health Department officials are investigating over one hundred cases of E. coli poisoning in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania. People have been diagnosed with food poisoning in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Indiana. The majority of these people claim that they ate sandwiches topped with lettuce at a Wendy’s Restaurant within the week before their food poisoning diagnosis.

Public health officials in Michigan have confirmed 43 cases of E. Coli that match the strain in a multi-state outbreak. A number of similar cases have been identified in Ohio. The specific source of the food poisoning has not been officially determined, but one possible source is romaine lettuce used to top hamburgers and sandwiches at Wendy’s restaurants.

The illness onset dates range from late July through early August 2022. The sickness and harm have ranged from mild to very severe. Many victims have required extensive hospitalization and medical care. Four cases of hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) have been diagnosed and suspected to be related to the contaminated lettuce at Wendy’s Restaurants.

  • E. Coli outbreak cases have been reported in the following counties: Allegan, Branch,Clinton, Genesee, Gratiot, Jackson, Kent, Macomb, Midland, Monroe, Muskegon, Oakland, Ogemaw, Ottawa, Saginaw, Washtenaw, and Wayne and the City of Detroit. Public health departments in those counties are closely monitoring patients and working hard to determine the source of the poisoning.

E. coli is a bacterium that lives in the digestive tracks of animals and humans. Most varieties are harmless, but some can cause severe illness. Common sources of E. coli include:

  • Raw milk or dairy products that are not pasteurized.
  • Raw fruits or vegetables, such as lettuce, that have come into contact with infected animal feces.

Symptoms of E. Coli poisoning are very serious. They include severe stomach cramps, diarrhea, and vomiting. Some people experience high fevers and many develop life-threatening conditions.

E. coli infections often require hospitalization and expensive medical care, the damages from this food poisoning can be extensive.

The Wendy’s food poisoning claims are just at their initial stages.  Very few lawsuits have been filed to date, but it is expected dozens will be filed in courthouses shortly.  At this time, there are no reported Wendy’s food poisoning settlements.

In general, food poisoning settlements include money payment for pain and suffering, mental anguish, and the physical injuries caused by the food contamination. In addition, claims for economic losses and damages are also demanded in a food poisoning lawsuit. These are financial losses and include payment of medical bills and expenses, as well as lost wages and income resulted from missed time at work.

If you ate food at a Wendy’s Restaurant that contained romaine lettuce in July or August and were diagnosed or hospitalized with E. coli poisoning, you may benefit from speaking to a food poisoning attorney.

Article By Lawrence J. Buckfire of Buckfire Law

For more personal injury legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Buckfire & Buckfire, P.C. 2022

Oregon Health Authority Adopts COVID-19 Vaccination and Masking Rules in Healthcare and K-12 Education

On January 31, 2022, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published permanent rules relating to COVID-19 vaccination and masking requirements in healthcare settings, just a few days after issuing similar rules for K-12 schools. The permanent rules replaced temporary rules that expire after 180 days.

The permanent rules for both healthcare and K-12 settings will “remain in effect unless the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer issues an order stating that the requirements . . . are no longer necessary to control COVID-19.” Under both rules, the factors that may lead to a loosening of restrictions or rescission of the permanent rules include the following:

  • “The degree of COVID-19 transmission”

  • “COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths”

  • “Disparate COVID-19 related health impacts on communities of color and tribal communities”

  • “Guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”

  • “Proportion of the population partially or fully vaccinated”

The statewide temporary indoor mask mandate is set to expire on February 8, 2022. OHA is still reviewing public comments on a proposed permanent indoor mask mandate and expects to publish a permanent rule in the coming weeks. Healthcare and K-12 employers may want to revisit their COVID-19 policies and workplace practices to consider whether they are complying

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For similar articles on public health, visit the NLR Health Care Law section.

PFAS Rolling into Regulation

Introduction

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, abbreviated as PFAS, are a class of widely dispersed chemicals quickly gaining notoriety in the public health and environmental remediation space. In 2019, rapid developments toward regulation to govern the investigation and cleanup of PFAS contamination to protect human health are occurring in a wide variety of arenas, including federal regulation and congressional action as well as at the state level through both regulation and enacted legislation. This article examines the current state of regulatory developments for PFAS and projects where things are heading in the remainder of 2019, with particular focus on how those developments will incentivize and accelerate the pace of site cleanups and cost recovery, and pose significant challenges to existing sites where other contaminants are already being addressed.

What are PFAS?

PFAS are a class of more than 4,000 synthetic chemicals comprised of carbon-fluorine chains of varying lengths. PFAS have been in use since the late 1940s, due to their unique resistant physical and chemical properties. For example, PFAS have been used in non-stick applications such as cookware, paper packaging, and textiles, as well as in certain types of firefighting foam.[1] The two most widely studied PFAS are perfluorooctane sulfonate or PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA.

Over the past decade, understanding of PFAS and their potential toxicity to humans and the environment has increased. Of particular concern is their stability in the environment. The properties that made PFAS so desirable for commercial and industrial use keep these compounds from degrading in the environment and allow them to pose a long-term threat if not removed from the environment and/or from drinking water supplies. Common exposure to these compounds can come through their product use as well as drinking from contaminated water supplies impacted by their release. Also notable are the very low levels at which these compounds exhibit their toxicity, and the very stringent levels under consideration by the regulatory agencies for controlling these compounds. For example, EPA has set interim screening levels of 70 nanograms per liter (parts per trillion or ppt), and several states have proposed guidance levels of 15 ppt or less. For context, 15 ppt is equivalent to a few droplets in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.

Federal Regulatory Developments

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) authorizes cleanup at sites where hazardous substances have been released, and enables parties conducting cleanups to seek cost recovery from other potentially responsible parties. The ability to potentially recover costs under CERCLA can be an important driver in encouraging impacted parties to investigate and remediate contaminated sites. However, as an emerging contaminant class, PFAS are not currently regulated as hazardous substances under CERCLA.

In February 2019, EPA issued an Action Plan outlining its steps to address PFAS and protect public health.[2] Among its listed priority actions was to propose a national drinking water regulatory determination for the two most widely studied PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, by the end of 2019. This proposed determination would begin the process towards establishment of a maximum contaminant level, or MCL, for these compounds. Another priority action was to initiate the process to list PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances; in April of 2019 at a meeting of state regulators, EPA committed to proposing this hazardous substance designation by the end of 2019.[3] Such a designation will have a multitude of impacts, including 1) PFOA and/or PFOS-contaminated sites will be eligible for listing as Superfund sites; 2) Federal and State authorities will have mechanisms through which they can seek damages or cleanup costs from responsible parties; and 3) Superfund monies will be eligible for use in cleaning up sites contaminated with PFOA and/or PFOS.

This commitment to regulate PFOA and PFOS under CERCLA was reaffirmed in a keynote speech of EPA’s General Counsel on September 12th at the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts. In his speech, the Honorable Matthew Leopold indicated that EPA was actively looking at designating PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA hazardous substances by year’s end. This would represent one of the few times in which new contaminants such as these were regulated under CERCLA.

Concurrent with these EPA actions, congressional legislators have called for increased and expedited federal action to regulate PFOA and PFOS, and in some cases the entire PFAS class of 4000 plus chemicals. There have been several bills proposed in 2019 which would commit EPA to taking expedited action with regards to PFAS, including listing some or all PFAS as hazardous substances, and establishing federal MCLs.[4] Perhaps most notably are two bills regarding appropriations for the Fiscal Year 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. S.1790 (passed by the Senate on June 27, 2019) would require EPA to promulgate drinking water MCLs for PFOA and PFOS within two years of enactment, and H.R.2500 (passed by the House on July 12, 2019) would require EPA to designate all PFAS as hazardous substances within one year of enactment.

State officials have also actively petitioned for more expedited federal action on PFAS. On July 30, 2019, 22 state and territory attorneys general issued a letter to Congress requesting that certain PFAS be designated hazardous substances, in particular, PFOA, PFOS, and a PFOA-replacement chemical known as GenX. In their letter, the attorneys general specifically note that such a designation would promote cleanup efforts, including federal facilities formerly owned or operated by the US Department of Defense.[5]

Based on these developments from multiple agencies and levels of government, it appears likely that in the relatively short term PFOA and PFOS will be designated as hazardous substances under CERCLA. This in turn will open the door for CERCLA regulation of PFAS-contaminated sites. Once designated, the next question will be one of appropriate cleanup levels. Typically, EPA would take the lead with establishment of MCLs that can be used to develop risk-based cleanup levels, and from which states could either adopt or modify. However, the process for proposing and finalizing a federal MCL can take years. Thus, faced with increasing public pressure to respond to PFAS contamination, the states have stepped in to fill this gap.

State Regulatory Developments

In November 2018, New Jersey became the first state to issue an MCL for any individual PFAS, specifically for the chemical perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA).[6] For PFOA and PFOS, there are currently no state MCLs that have been finalized. However, many states have established PFOA and PFOS advisory or screening levels, and several states have begun the MCL rule-making process, with some anticipating finalization this year.

In 2019, three states have proposed MCLs of varying concentrations for PFOA and PFOS:

  • In April, New Jersey proposed an MCL of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS; the public comment period has since closed, and the standard is in the process of finalization;[7]
  • In June, New Hampshire proposed an MCL of 12 ppt for PFOA and 15 ppt for PFOS (they also proposed MCLs for two other PFAS chemicals);[8] those MCLs were approved on July 18,[9] and will become effective on October 1; and
  • In July, New York proposed an MCL of 10 ppt for PFOA and PFOS making them the most protective standards in the nation; the proposal is currently out for public comment, which closes on September 24.[10]

In addition, several other states have provided commitments to establishing MCLs in the near future. These include Massachusetts with an MCL rule proposal anticipated by the end of 2019;[11] Michigan with an MCL rule proposal expected by October with finalization in 2020;[12] and Vermont with a commitment to establishing and adopting MCLs by February 1, 2020.[13] Other states are also moving forward with efforts to regulate PFAS. For example, in August 2019 California established notification levels for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water of 6.5 ppt and 5.1 ppt, respectively, that go into effect January 1, 2020. [14],[15]

Conclusion

With federal and state regulatory action underway, and mounting public pressure to expedite a response, it is clear that regulation of some PFAS under CERCLA is imminent. By the end of the year, it is likely that 1) EPA will have designated, or be close to designating, PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances; and 2) several states will have finalized MCLs to regulate their remedial response. These two developments will open the door for parties to investigate, cleanup, and ultimately recover the costs associated with PFAS-contaminated sites. In addition, these developments will likely complicate existing sites in terms of both their required remedial response as well as their cost recovery strategy. New PFAS regulation at existing sites will unlock a myriad of cost implications not the least of which involve cost allocation among potentially responsible parties. In the face of these complications and uncertainties, what is clear is that PFAS regulation has rolled off the horizon and directly in front of those involved with protecting public health and the environment.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm or its clients. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or accounting advice.

[1]  For a more thorough background on the history and usage of PFAS, see the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council fact sheets at https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/

[2] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-acting-administrator-announces-first-ever-comprehensive-nationwide-pfas-action-1

https://www.epa.gov/pfas/epas-pfas-action-plan

[3] https://www.asdwa.org/2019/04/11/cooperative-federalism-pfas-are-top-issues-at-ecos-spring-meeting/

[4]  https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45793.pdf

[5]  https://portal.ct.gov/-/media/AG/Press_Releases/2019/Multistate-PFAS-Legislative-Letter73019FINAL.pdf

[6]  New Jersey regulated PFNA largely in response to a regional issue relating to specific historic discharges from a chemical manufacturing facility.

[7]  https://www.nj.gov/dep/rules/notices/20190401a.html

[8]  https://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/2019/20190628-pfas-standards.htm

[9]  https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rules/jlcar/minutes/AM7-18-19.pdf

[10]  https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-availability-350-million-water-system-upgrades-statewide-and-directs

[11]  https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2019/06/20/pfas-stakeholder-presentation-20190620.pdf

At the American Bar Association, Section Environment, Energy, and Resources Fall Conference in Boston, Massachusetts, the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection participated in a panel discussion titled “The State of CERCLA Following EPA Reform: More of the Same or Something Super?” In this discussion, Mr. Suuberg indicated that Massachusetts will finalize its PFAS standards by the end of the year, and in an accompanying paper noted that the comment period on the proposed cleanup standard of 20 ppt (for a sum of six PFAS) had closed in July and was currently under review.

[12]       https://www.michigan.gov/egle/0,9429,7-135-3308_3323-494077–rss,00.html

[13]       https://dec.vermont.gov/sites/dec/files/PFAS/Docs/Act21-2019-VT-PFAS-Law-Factsheet.pdf

[14]            https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/PFOA_PFOS.html

[15]      California already had notification levels of 14 ppt for PFOA and 13 ppt for PFOS and will continue to have a response level for those drinking water systems exceeding 70 ppt for the total combined concentration of both compounds, consistent with EPA’s advisory level. 

© Copyright Nathan 2019

ARTICLE BY Brian Henthorn and Christopher Loos of Nathan.
For more PFAS Regulation developments, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resources law page.