There are less toxic PFA, or “chemical products forever”, in waterproof and other products sold in Canada, thanks to the new rules in other places. But where are the PFA still? What are the rules here anyway? Should you throw your old Gore-Tex jacket? And what should you do to avoid products with PFA? Here is a closer look.
What are the PFA and why should we worry about them?
PFA, or perfluoroalquilo substances, are often called “chemical products forever” because they are difficult to break down and can accumulate in the bodies and the environment of people.
They have been widely used industrially, but also to waterproof and repellency of spots on many products, including make up, Paper -based food packaging, female hygiene products and clothes as School uniformsrain jackets and Winter gloves for children.
But they have been related to many negative health impacts, including a higher risk of cancers, reduced immune response and fertility, altered metabolism and greater risk of obesity.
That is why many jurisdictions introduce new rules to limit PFA.
How do the new rules about PFA in the clothes affect Canadians?
Two US states approved laws that restrict the PFA in the clothes in 2022 that entered into force earlier this year.
New York Law Prophete the sale of clothing that contains PFA as “intentionally added chemicals”, with the exception of professional uniforms that protect from health or environmental risks and outdoor clothing for “severe wet conditions” that is not sold for general use for the general use of the consumer.
California law It prohibits the manufacture, distribution or sale of textile items, not only clothes, but also things such as upholstery, bags and bedding, which contains PFA that are added intentionally or above a certain level. It also has clothing exemptions for “severe wet weather conditions” until January 1, 2028.
While these rules simply entered into force two months ago, companies have had to prepare. Arlene Blum is Executive Director of Green Science Policy, a group that advocates the regulations to eliminate the PFA. She already said that the main clothing companies are “almost all out of the PFA.”
Bob Kirke is Executive Director of the Canadian Federation of Apparos, which represents companies from the entire clothing supply chain, from textile and distributors manufacturers to importers and retailers. He said that the rules in California, especially, and consumer expectations have caused the Canadian industry to move away from the PFA. “But I couldn’t tell you exactly how much,” he added.
Bruce Calder is Vice President of Operations in Claigan Environmental, based in Ottawa, which performs PFA tests. He said that a prohibition of main water soluble PFA in Europe has also made the difference. That type of PFAS is considered the most dangerous because the body can easily absorb.
“Many products are sold worldwide,” Calder said. “[The ban has] It had a great impact. “
For the first time, the United States Environmental Protection Agency is introducing standards to limit the PFA, or ‘Forever Chemicals’, in drinking water. Andrew Chang explores how frequent these chemicals are in our daily lives, why they are so dangerous and what Canada is doing to treat them.
What are the rules in Canada?
Three well-studied PFA groups (PFO, PFOA and LC-PFCA) are prohibited in Canada due to its risk to the environment, and the Canada environment told CBC News that the new restrictions on production, use, sale and sale Import this spring.
In 2023, the Federal Government asked companies to report PFA in products. Cassie Barker, manager of Senior Programs of Environmental Defense, a group that has been pressing to get the PFA out of the products, said it will help the Government establish rules about their elimination.
Environment Canada too Published a draft report in July 2024 Proposing that PFA as a group, excluding a subgroup called fluoropolymers, is added and regulated under the list of toxic substances in Canada.
Environment Canada told CBC News in an email at the end of last week that is expected to finish “soon.”
Calder said that previous Canadian restrictions were effective to get the PFA out of the makeup from 2021 (although the CBC market found Evidence of PFA in makeup in 2023), but it was not applied to items made as clothes.
The CBC market proves eight popular makeup brands for the so -called chemicals forever. The federal government is currently weighing whether to classify these chemicals as harmful to human health.
What products sold in Canada still contain PFA?
Calder said recent tests show that PFAs have largely eliminated waterproofs and female hygiene products, such as period panties.
And they begin to be withdrawn from products such as winter gloves for children. Last year, his company tested gloves for children bought in Canadian stores in collaboration with environmental defense. They found pfa soluble in water, which can be absorbed in the body, in Eight of 11 pairs. Barker said it is alarming because many children chew their gloves: “This is a direct route to the exhibition.”
But Calder said that a test test last month (not yet published) found PFA in just three of the 12 pairs of gloves for children bought in Canadian stores this season, which suggests that the change is underway.
In Canada, he said, his greatest exposure in these days will probably be from bowls of paper to carry on paper, paper straws or other paper containers that use PFA for waterproofing. The most risky are those without corporate brand, he added. This is because many fast food brands have pledged to go to the PFA, and last year, the drug and food administration of the United States. PFAS coating for prohibited in most food containers.
New research has found that some containers that are promoted as environmental friendly contain high levels of PFA chemicals that can be harmful to the environment and human health. PFAs are difficult to break down and have been related to multiple different types of cancer.
Blum says that microwave corn popcorn “are still a problem” even in the US.
What is used in place? And is it toxic?
Products such as jackets that used to be made of PFA-based fabrics, such as the previous generation of Gore-Tex, have now been replaced by a polyethylene -based fabricthat is not toxic and As reported, stronger, thinner with a lower carbon footprint.
Water repellent coatings in jackets and items such as gloves have been replaced by a variety of options, including Waxes, silicones and polyurethane. Some of them can release toxins, but the paraffin wax has been considered safer by drug-frightening Free, a group based in the United States that advocates safer products.
Some product reviewers Report that the new Gore-Tex material works as well as the previous version, but must be washed and dry more frequently to maintain water waterproofing..
Kirke said he believes that rain jackets without PFA can work well in general, but for performance products that need to meet the highest technical standards for water impermeability, “he cannot meet those standards without PFA.” However, he pointed out that technology is changing quickly. “We are really in a period of evolution,” he said.
A group of chemicals used in fire extinguishing uniforms has been related to the increase in cancer rates. Vancouver could become one of the first cities in North America to eliminate its use.
So, should I throw my old waterproof pfa and buy new?
All interviewed for this piece said no. “I don’t think it’s a great risk,” said Blum, who still has his own “PFAS” jacket. She said that the raw PFA materials used to make the jacket are much more harmful than those of the jacket itself and, therefore, the biggest risks are for the people who manufactured it.
He added that producing a new jacket uses a lot of energy and materials, so avoiding that is probably the greenest option.
Blum said he thought that school uniforms were more worrisome, since they come into direct contact with the skin, and children run and sweat in them.
What can consumers do to avoid PFA products?
Green Science Policy maintains a page of Brands without PFAFrom rain equipment to furniture and baby products.
“I think it depends on the companies that manufacture products and the government, make sure they are free of toxic chemicals,” Sad Blum. “It’s really difficult for consumers to track.”
She suggests that the most effective for consumers is to support companies and governments that try to reduce the use of PFA.
