Firefighters With Cancer Hold 3M, DuPont, And Dozens of Other Companies Responsible For Their Reprehensible Conduct

The producers of AFFF knowingly permitted dangerous goods to be sold and obtained by first responders

Thursday, April 4, 2024 - Firefighter cancer lawsuits have recently brought to light the dangers to human health posed by per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) present in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF). Due to their work exposure, firemen are disproportionately harmed, therefore this has prompted several legal and regulatory solutions aimed at minimizing these hazards. Experts have explored the legal and regulatory system that has developed in reaction to the PFAS disaster, highlighting the difficulties in resolving long-standing environmental and health issues while paving the way for safer alternatives. The legal system has evolved into a combat zone for compensation and accountability related to exposure to PFAS. Due to their frequent exposure to toxic substances from training exercises and firefighting, firefighters have been at the forefront of litigation. These cases are based on claims that the AFFF makers 3M, DuPont, and about one dozen other companies should have known, or were aware of the possible health concerns linked to PFAS but did not provide users with a sufficient warning or take action to reduce those risks. All around the country, hundreds of AFFF lawsuits have been filed, some as part of class-action initiatives and others as individual cases. Usually, the claims made in these lawsuits are that the producers of AFFF knowingly permitted dangerous goods to be sold and obtained by first responders.

One landmark case involved a firefighter who developed AFFF testicular cancer after years of exposure to AFFF. The jury awarded a substantial settlement, recognizing the link between the firefighter's cancer and his exposure to PFAS. This case set a precedent and opened the floodgates for similar lawsuits nationwide, highlighting the legal system's role in addressing environmental health issues. Parallel to the legal challenges, regulatory bodies have begun to tighten controls on PFAS, aiming to reduce exposure and phase out the most harmful substances. These regulatory efforts span local, state, and federal levels, each with varying degrees of restriction and timelines for implementation. Leading the way in PFAS regulation are several states that have passed legislation restricting or outlawing the use of AFFF that include these substances. Requiring the phase-out of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting foams, states such as New York, California, and Michigan have enacted laws claiming the need to safeguard the environment and firefighters against the long-term impacts of these compounds. To combat PFAS pollution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has taken action on the federal level. This includes identifying specific PFAS chemicals as hazardous substances under the Superfund law and proposing drinking water restrictions for them. This classification could make it easier to clean up polluted areas and even hold manufacturers accountable for their cleanup efforts. Furthermore, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization act of 2018 marked a significant shift in policy by allowing commercial airports to use PFAS-free firefighting foams, breaking away from longstanding requirements that mandated the use of AFFF for firefighting.

Information provided by AFFFLawsuitCenter.com, a website devoted to providing news about AFFF and PFAS cancer, lymphoma and leukaemia claims, including a free no-cost, no-obligation AFFF Lawsuit Claim.