Connect with us

Business

Three ‘Forever Chemicals’ Makers Settle Public Water Lawsuits

Published

on

Three ‘Forever Chemicals’ Makers Settle Public Water Lawsuits

Three major chemical companies on Friday said they would pay more than $1 billion to settle the first in a wave of claims that they and other companies contaminated drinking water across the country with so-called forever chemicals that have been linked to cancer and other illnesses.

The companies — Chemours, DuPont and Corteva — said they had reached an agreement in principle to set up a $1.19 billion fund to help remove toxic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, from public drinking water systems. PFAS have been linked to liver damage, weakened immune systems and several forms of cancer, among other harms, and are referred to as forever chemicals because they linger in the human body and the environment.

Bloomberg News also reported on Friday that 3M had reached a tentative deal worth “at least $10 billion” with U.S. cities and towns to resolve related PFAS claims. Sean Lynch, a spokesman for 3M, declined to comment on the report, which cited people familiar with the deal without naming them.

Hundreds of communities across the country have sued Chemours, 3M and other companies, claiming that their products — which are used in firefighting foams, nonstick coatings and a wide variety of other products — contaminated their soil and water. They have sought billions of dollars in damages to deal with the health impacts and the cost of cleaning up and monitoring polluted sites.

A trial set to begin next week in federal court in South Carolina was seen as a test case for those lawsuits. In that case, the City of Stuart, Fla., sued 3M and several other companies, claiming that firefighting foam containing PFAS — used for decades in training exercises by the city’s fire department — had contaminated the local water supply.

Advertisement

The announced settlement is “an incredibly important next step in what has been decades of work to try to make sure that the costs of this massive PFAS ‘forever chemical’ contamination are not borne by the victims but are borne by the companies who caused the problem,” said Rob Bilott, an environmental lawyer advising plaintiffs in the cases.

Environmental groups were cautious, however. Erik D. Olson, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said the settlement, combined with money recently appropriated by Congress to help with contamination, would “take a bite out of the problem.” But, he added, “it’s not going to fully solve it.”

The preliminary settlement with Chemours, DuPont and Corteva, all of which declined to comment beyond the announcement, may not be the end of the costs for those companies, either. The deal, which requires approval by a judge, would resolve lawsuits involving water systems that already had detectable levels of PFAS contamination, as well as those required to monitor for contamination by the Environmental Protection Agency.

But it excludes some other water systems, and it would not resolve lawsuits resulting from claims of environmental damage or personal injury from individuals already sickened by the chemicals. And state attorneys general have filed new suits, some as recently as this week, over the matter.

The liability of 3M could be even greater. In an online presentation in March, CreditSights, a financial research company, estimated that PFAS litigation could ultimately cost 3M more than $140 billion, though it said a lower figure was more likely. The company has said that by the end of 2025 it plans to exit all PFAS manufacturing and will work to end the use of PFAS in its products.

Advertisement

Shares of 3M rose sharply on Friday after the Bloomberg report, as did shares of Chemours, DuPont and Corteva.

The synthetic chemicals are so ubiquitous that nearly all Americans, including newborns, carry PFAS in their bloodstream. As many as 200 million Americans are exposed to PFAS in their tap water, according to a peer-reviewed 2020 study.

PFAS cleanup efforts took on more urgency last year when the E.P.A. determined that levels of the chemicals “much lower than previously understood” could cause harm and that almost no level of exposure was safe. It advised that drinking water contain no more than 0.004 parts per trillion of perfluorooctanoic acid and 0.02 parts per trillion of perfluorooctanesulfonic acid.

Previously, the agency had advised that drinking water contain no more than 70 parts per trillion of the chemicals. The E.P.A. said the government would for the first time require near-zero levels of the substances.

Some industry groups criticized the proposed regulation and said the Biden administration had created an impossible standard that would cost manufacturers and municipal water agencies billions of dollars. Industries would have to stop discharging the chemicals into waterways, and water utilities would have to test for the PFAS chemicals and remove them. Communities with limited resources will be hardest hit by the new rule, they warned.

Advertisement

The E.P.A. estimated that compliance would cost water utilities $772 million annually. But many public utilities say they expect the costs to be much higher.

PFAS-related litigation involves more than 4,000 cases, filed in federal courts across the country but largely consolidated before a federal judge in Charleston, S.C., as so-called multidistrict litigation because the lawsuits involve a common set of facts and allegations. It is not uncommon for so-called mass tort cases to be grouped together like this in federal court, making it easier to conduct discovery and take depositions when so many plaintiffs and defendants are involved.

Elizabeth Burch, a professor at the University of Georgia who studies mass tort litigation, said, “Without the settlement documents being made public, it’s hard to say for certain which claims are covered by the purported deal.”

The list of cases against the companies continues to grow. Maryland filed two suits this week against 3M, DuPont and others. Days earlier, a similar one filed by Rhode Island’s attorney general accused the companies of violating “state environmental and consumer protection laws.”

“I think this is the tip of the iceberg,” said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food and Water Watch, a nonprofit organization in Washington that works on issues related to clean water, food and climate. “This issue affects people all across the country in so many communities.”

Advertisement

Ms. Hauter said she wanted to see more stringent regulations from the E.P.A.

“We need real strong enforceable regulations on the entire class of PFAS chemicals,” she said. “I’m not sure that this settlement is as large a deterrent as necessary. So much harm has been done in northern Michigan. People’s lives have been severely impacted. Setting up a fund is a modest step.”

Lisa Friedman contributed reporting.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Business

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

Published

on

If your kid wants skin-care gifts for the holidays, here are some risks to consider

As parents rush into malls for the final days of Christmas shopping, many will be armed with wishlists full of beauty products for their children.

Skin care is a fast-growing phenomenon among Gen Alpha, typically defined as those born from 2010 and on. Dubbed “Sephora kids,” the tweens and teens have been buying up products from buzzy brands including Drunk Elephant, Bubble and Glow Recipe and diligently following multistep, antiaging skin-care routines popularized on social media.

With kids becoming a powerful segment of the booming $164-billion global skin-care industry, brands have been catering to them with new products packaged in colorful, eye-catching bottles and jars.

Dermatologists say getting children into the habit of taking care of their skin is a good thing, but they’re urging parents to exercise caution as they splurge on holiday gifts.

“For pediatric dermatology, we always say to be very mindful and wary of active ingredients that are in products,” said Dr. Jayden Galamgam, a pediatric dermatologist at UCLA Health. “A lot of the time, simple is better.”

Advertisement

What products are OK for my kid to use?

A gentle cleanser, a hydrating moisturizer and a good sunscreen are recommended and appropriate for any age.

“You don’t need to be using all these products; you don’t need a 10-step routine,” Galamgam said. “Use three products. Most don’t need anything more than that.”

Look for broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher; it should be worn daily and reapplied every couple of hours.

What products should I avoid?

Anti-wrinkle serums, exfoliants and peels are not appropriate for children. Avoid products containing potent alpha hydroxy acids, beta hydroxy acids and retinol, Galamgam said.

“I would definitely try to stay away from those, because they can cause a lot of irritation for kids,” he said.

Advertisement

Social media trends often encourage tweens to experiment with cosmetics that are inappropriate for their skin type or age, so parents need to look carefully at ingredient labels before buying, said Sam Cutler, founder of Beverly Hills-based tween skin-care brand Petite ’n Pretty.

“We want to caution parents about the growing trend of products marketed as ‘kid-friendly’ due to their bright, playful packaging, which can be misleading,” she said. “Many of these products are formulated for adults and contain harsh ingredients, such as hydroxy acids, retinoids and artificial fragrances, which are too aggressive for young, delicate skin and can cause irritation or long-term damage.”

My kid wants antiaging products anyway. What should I say?

You can talk to them them about the potential harmful side effects, and about the risks of following the advice of online “skinfluencers.”

“There are a lot of teens that are using these products inappropriately due to misinformation or wanting to fit in with their friends based on what they’re seeing on TikTok,” said Dr. Carol Cheng, a pediatric dermatologist and an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at UCLA.

“They’re easily susceptible. A lot of them don’t realize that these influencers are probably being paid to promote certain products.”

Advertisement

Is anything being done to protect kids from potentially harmful skin-care products?

In February, California Assemblymember Alex Lee introduced legislation to ban the sale of antiaging products to kids under the age of 13, but the bill failed to pass in the California Legislature.

Continue Reading

Business

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Published

on

Ivan Boesky Was Seen as Greed Incarnate, and Never Said Otherwise

Before the answers to life’s questions fit in our pocket, you used to have to turn a dial. If you were lucky, Phil Donahue would be on, ready to guide you toward enlightenment. In a stroke of deluxe good fortune, Dr. Ruth Westheimer might have stopped by to be the enlightenment. He was the search engine. She was a trusted result.

Donahue hailed from Cleveland. The windshield glasses, increasingly snowy thatch of hair, marble eyes, occasional pair of suspenders and obvious geniality said “card catalog,” “manager of the ’79 Reds,” “Stage Manager in a Chevy Motors production of ‘Our Town.’” Dr. Ruth was Donahue’s antonym, a step stool to his straight ladder. She kept her hair in a butterscotch helmet, fancied a uniform of jacket-blouse-skirt and came to our aid, via Germany, with a voice of crinkled tissue paper. Not even eight years separated them, yet so boyish was he and so seasoned was she that he read as her grandson. (She maybe reached his armpit.) Together and apart, they were public servants, American utilities.

Donahue was a journalist. His forum was the talk show, but some new strain in which the main attraction bypassed celebrities. People — every kind of them — lined up to witness other people being human, to experience Donahue’s radical conduit of edification, identification, curiosity, shock, wonder, outrage, surprise and dispute, all visible in the show’s televisual jackpot: cutaways to us, reacting, taking it all in, nodding, gasping. When a celebrity made it to the “Donahue” stage — Bill Clinton, say, La Toya Jackson, the Judds — they were expected to be human, too, to be accountable for their own humanity. From 1967 to 1996, for more than 6,000 episodes, he permitted us to be accountable to ourselves. 

What Donahue knew was that we — women especially — were eager, desperate, to be understood, to learn and learn and learn. We call his job “host” when, really, the way he did it, running that microphone throughout the audience, racing up, down, around, sticking it here then here then over here, was closer to “switchboard operator.” It was “hot dog vendor at Madison Square Garden.” The man got his steps in. He let us do more of the questioning than he did — he would just edit, interpret, clarify. Egalitarianism ruled. Articulation, too. And anybody who needed the mic usually got it.

The show was about both what was on our mind and what had never once crossed it. Atheism. Naziism. Colorism. Childbirth. Prison. Rapists. AIDS. Chippendales, Chernobyl, Cher. Name a fetish, Phil Donahue tried to get to its bottom, sometimes by trying it himself. (Let us never forget the episode when he made his entrance in a long skirt, blouse and pussy bow for one of the show’s many cross-dressing studies.) Now’s the time to add that “Donahue” was a morning talk show. In Philadelphia, he arrived every weekday at 9 a.m., which meant that, in the summers, I could learn about compulsive shopping or shifting gender roles from the same kitchen TV set as my grandmother.

Advertisement

Sex and sexuality were the show’s prime subjects. There was so much that needed confessing, correction, corroboration, an ear lent. For that, Donahue needed an expert. Many times, the expert was Dr. Ruth, a godsend who didn’t land in this country until she was in her late 20s and didn’t land on television until she was in her 50s. Ruth Westheimer arrived to us from Germany, where she started as Karola Ruth Siegel and strapped in as her life corkscrewed, as it mocked fiction. Her family most likely perished in the Auschwitz death camps after she was whisked to the safety of a Swiss children’s home, where she was expected to clean. The twists include sniper training for one of the military outfits that would become the Israel Defense Forces, maiming by cannonball on her 20th birthday, doing research at a Planned Parenthood in Harlem, single motherhood and three husbands. She earned her doctorate from Columbia University, in education, and spent her postdoc researching human sexuality. And because her timing was perfect, she emerged at the dawn of the 1980s, an affable vector of an era’s craze for gnomic sages (Zelda Rubinstein, Linda Hunt, Yoda), masterpiece branding and the nasty.

Hers was the age of Mapplethorpe and Madonna, of Prince, Skinemax and 2 Live Crew. On her radio and television shows, in a raft of books and a Playgirl column and through her promiscuous approach to talk-show appearances, she aimed to purge sex of shame, to promote sexual literacy. Her feline accent and jolly innuendo pitched, among other stuff, the Honda Prelude, Pepsi, Sling TV and Herbal Essences. (“Hey!” she offers to a young elevator passenger. “This is where we get off.”) The instructions for Dr. Ruth’s Game of Good Sex says it can be played by up to four couples; the board is vulval and includes stops at “Yeast Infection,” “Chauvinism” and “Goose Him.”

On “Donahue,” she is direct, explicit, dispelling, humorous, clear, common-sensical, serious, vivid. A professional therapist. It was Donahue who handled the comedy. On one visit in 1987, a caller needs advice about a husband who cheats because he wants to have sex more often than she does. Dr. Ruth tells Donahue that if the caller wants to keep the marriage, and her husband wants to do it all the time, “then what she should do is to masturbate him. And it’s all right for him to masturbate himself also a few times.” The audience is hear-a-pin-drop rapt or maybe just squirmy. So Donahue reaches into his parochial-school-student war chest and pulls out the joke about the teacher who tells third-grade boys, “Don’t play with yourself, or you’ll go blind.” And Donahue raises his hand like a kid at the back of the classroom and asks, “Can I do it till I need glasses?” Westheimer giggles, maybe noticing the large pair on Donahue’s face. This was that day’s cold open.

They were children of salesmen, these two; his father was in the furniture business, hers sold what people in the garment industry call notions. They inherited a salesman’s facility for people and packaging. When a “Donahue” audience member asks Westheimer whether her own husband believes she practices what she preaches, she says this is why she never brings him anywhere. “He would tell you and Phil: ‘Do not listen to her. It’s all talk,’” which cracks the audience up.

But consider what she talked about — and consider how she said it. My favorite Dr. Ruth word was “pleasure.” From a German mouth, the word conveys what it lacks with an American tongue: sensual unfurling. She vowed to speak about sex to mass audiences using the proper terminology. Damn the euphemisms. People waited as long as a year and a half for tickets to “Donahue” so they could damn them, too. But of everything Westheimer pitched, of all the terms she precisely used, pleasure was her most cogent product, a gift she believed we could give to others, a gift she swore we owed ourselves.

Advertisement

I miss the talk show that Donahue reinvented. I miss the way Dr. Ruth talked about sex. It’s fitting somehow that this antidogmatic-yet-priestly Irish Catholic man would, on occasion, join forces with a carnal, lucky-to-be-alive Jew to urge the exploration of our bodies while demonstrating respect, civility, reciprocation. They believed in us, that we were all interesting, that we could be trustworthy panelists in the discourse of being alive. Trauma, triviality, tubal ligation: Let’s talk about it! Fear doesn’t seem to have occurred to them. Or if it did, it was never a deterrent. Boldly they went. — And with her encouragement, boldly we came.

Wesley Morris is a critic at large for The New York Times and a staff writer for the magazine.

Continue Reading

Business

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Published

on

Party City to shut down after nearly 40 years in business

Party City, the party and costume supply chain with more than 70 locations in California including several in Los Angeles, is shutting down operations immediately and laying off its employees.

In an online meeting Friday viewed by Bloomberg News, Party City Chief Executive Barry Litwin told corporate employees that it would be their last day of work. CNN reported that employees would not receive severance pay.

“That is without question the most difficult message that I’ve ever had to deliver,” Litwin said in the video. The company will be “winding down” immediately, he said.

The chain, which has been in business for nearly 40 years and has around 700 locations, according to its website, could not handle a decrease in consumer spending triggered by everyday high prices, Litwin told employees.

Going-out-of-business sales began Friday, just 14 months after the company emerged from bankruptcy and four months after Litwin began as chief executive. The company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023 with about $1.8 billion in debt and emerged from the restructuring process under a plan meant to ensure its viability.

Advertisement

The company, however, continued to struggle and was considering reentering bankruptcy earlier this month, Bloomberg reported. The New Jersey retailer was falling behind on rent at some locations and running out of cash, according to the report.

Several retailers and fast-casual restaurant chains have struggled this year amid rising operating costs and inflation-wary consumers, including Big Lots, which is preparing to sell its stores, and Red Lobster, which filed for bankruptcy in May. Bricks-and-mortar locations in particular are scrambling to keep up with online retailers and big-box chains.

Continue Reading

Trending