Firefighter PFAS-related illness: Examining the Treadmill of Production and the battle for justice against a profit-driven system
Exposure to pollutants and environmental risk is a disproportionate issue, affecting different groups of people to various extents. In the US, firefighters are experiencing the impact of exposure to PFAS, or poly-fluoroalkyl substances, which are present in turnout gear, or the personal protective equipment (PPE) which firefighters use frequently on the job. PFAS refers to long-lasting chemicals that take a long time to break down. Although there is PFAS in a wide array of commonly used items, firefighters have elevated exposure to these chemicals due to their occupational gear. In fact, firefighters have a 250% higher chance of contracting cancer than non-firefighters.
Diane Cotter, the wife of a Massachusetts firefighter, described herself as an “accidental” advocate for firefighter PFAS exposure when she spoke to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce in 2019. Speaking for her husband, she says “With no knowledge of this threat, he took no precaution. He and his 1.4 million brothers and sisters, wear their turnout gear daily, touch the gear, the face, the mouth, we store it in our vehicles and wrap our children in it for photos. The gear has been degrading in our stations for twenty years. The PFAS adheres to the dust in the fire house we ingest this daily”. Diane’s husband, Paul Cotter was diagnosed with prostate cancer in November 2014.
Firefighters across the US have similar stories to Paul and Diane Cotter. Research from more than 80,000 firefighters that spans decades has connected occupational cancer to firefighting PPE. 1 At the same time, the need for firefighters to be close to these chemicals has only increased as climate change fuels an increase in wildfires. National firefighter member associations, such as the International Association of Firefighters, are concerned by this endemic and have been pushing for political action to change regulatory standards, fund better gear, and provide compensation for those affected. Their stance is that cancer induced by unnecessary occupational exposure is unacceptable. They are demanding updated standards, PFAS-free gear, and compensation for members and families affected by PFAS-related illness. General President Edward Kelly of the IAFF has publicly stated that “The IAFF will do whatever is necessary to remove PFAS from our gear, protect the health of our members, and the well-being of our families’’. 3 They are also developing precautionary steps until federal and industry action is taken by developing procedures that will hopefully limit unnecessary exposure to PFAS.
The Biden administration and EPA are concerned by this instance of occupational exposure to PFAS and are attempting to enforce compliance with federal toxin regulations, as well as recent environmental justice reforms. This renewed dedication can be seen via the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which includes $370 billion for clean energy initiatives, some of which will be allocated to fund PFAS-free gear production. During a recent speech at the International Association of Fire Fighters Legislative Conference, President Biden stated that this IRA investment “…makes the most significant investment in history in confronting climate change, including protecting forest health, reducing fire risk in nearby communities…”. While climate change is not always a bipartisan topic, the need for firefighters to combat wildfires is widely recognized. The government is taking action to change standards and update safety procedures, which usually come in the form of research grants. In 2022, the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs unanimously approved the Federal Firefighter Fairness Act (S1116), which helps provide worker compensation benefits to those affected by occupational cancer. Included in this act is the following statement: “Specifically, this guidance is to include information on ways to reduce and eliminate exposure to PFAS from firefighting foam and personal protective equipment, and prevent and eliminate the release of PFAS into the environment. The bill also requires the development and issuance of guidance to identify safer foam and non-foam alternatives, personal protective equipment, and other firefighting gear and tools that do not contain PFAS”. 5
On the other side of this story are manufacturers, such as DuPont, who have been long-term providers of PPE to US firefighters and are concerned mainly with profit, which disincentivizes them to confront this issue or pursue PFAS-free alternatives. DuPont and others are reluctant to acknowledge the fault with PPE gear and continue to state that their products are safe, meet industry standards, and enable firefighters to be successful. On DuPont’s website, there is a section addressing PFAS that reads “…the company’s use of PFAS is limited. We have systems, processes, and protocols in place ensuring that PFAS is used safely, controlled to the highest standards, and minimized…DuPont does not make or use PFOA or PFOS in the development or manufacture of our products’’. DuPont and other PPE gear manufacturers have annual revenues of hundreds of millions of dollars, making them less inclined to fix a system, which in their opinion, is not broken.
Why doesn’t DuPont own up to their mistakes? One conceptual frame that may relate is the Treadmill of Production theory, which views human-nature relations under capitalism as being caught in a cycle focused on increasing production, which drives consumption and results in negative environmental impacts. This cycle is driven by the imperatives of profit-making and economic growth, prioritizing this growth over the health and well-being of the environment. There is a direct relationship between environmental issues and vulnerable populations, due mostly to a lack of resources and representation in spaces where decisions are made. While the firefighting community does not have the same vulnerability as people of color or impoverished communities, their health issues have indeed been ignored. DuPont has made a sizable profit off of manufacturing PPE for US firefighters using conventional materials. Addressing the issue of PFAS and their role in occupational cancer rates amongst firefighters would likely decrease their profits by dissuading their other clients, causing them to pay reparations to victims, and ultimately leading to costly research into PFAS-free gear.
The Treadmill of Production theory connects the trend of globalization to rampant environmental degradation, shedding light on the relationship between state, capital, and the environment, and allowing for the nuances of these relations to be examined. This relationship between state, capital, and the environment plays out in this issue, through the interests of the Biden administration, PFAS-contaminated manufacturing companies, and climate-induced wildfires. Thus, an argument coming out of the treadmill of production theory is that our current social, political, and economic model needs to be reframed so that chasing profit does not have to come at the cost of values such as equal protection from environmental harm. To do so, shaping the narrative between the state, capital, and the environment will have to change. Where do those affected by environmental risks such as firefighters suffering from PFAS-related illnesses factor into these relationships highlighted by the Treadmill of Production? Specifically, how can national firefighter organizations equip the justice system to bridge the gap between enhanced regulation stemming from the Biden Administration and reforms made by manufacturers and producers of firefighter turnout gear?
While the IAFF is hopeful that the aforementioned legislation and government attention will provide necessary monetary benefits to victims of occupational cancer, they are also calling for those involved with the production of harmful turnout gear to address this issue and take action to make it right. The IAFF and other national firefighter unions are taking legal action to seek damages from these companies. They have hired three firms to demand compensation for PFAS-related injuries incurred by members, change regulatory standards that have enabled toxins in turnout gear, and demand that all turnout gear be replaced by PFAS-free alternatives. These firms are Motley Rice LLC, Simmons Hanly Conroy LLC, and Sullivan Papain Block McGrath Coffinas & Cannavo P.C., which are collectively known as the PFAS law firm coalition. 3 General President Kelly of the IAFF says “The health and safety of our members is non-negotiable, period…if manufacturers or regulatory groups refuse to acknowledge and work to remove these toxic chemicals from the protective gear firefighters wear, our members have no other viable remedies than to challenge these practices in court. We will take this battle wherever we need to”. 3 Even with these strong claims, there have yet to be significant results produced from these efforts.
Despite these efforts from the IAFF to put pressure on companies to adhere to federal regulations and acknowledge their role in firefighter illness, DuPont and others remain stagnant in their actions. One reason for this can be that adhering to federal regulations on PFAS and other toxins set forth by the EPA can be complicated for companies. Understanding and complying with changing regulations can often require specialized knowledge, which may necessitate a company to hire consultants or legal experts to assist them. Uncertainty about future regulations that change unexpectedly makes it difficult for companies to invest in compliance measures as well. Furthermore, the EPA does not have the scope to effectively enforce all of its regulations, which may create the perception among firms that non-compliance is not a big deal. The EPA is just one agency that cannot keep track of all industrial action and compliance. Additionally, each presidential administration makes significant changes to the power and mission of the EPA, which can be seen in the transition from a conservative Trump EPA to a more concerned Biden EPA. Another aspect to consider is that prior to the emergence of data connecting cancer to firefighter turnout gear, conventional PPE from DuPont was considered to be necessary protection for frontline firefighters. Designing outerwear that protects a human individual from a wildfire is no easy feat, and has only been accomplished through decades of trial and error. In fact, the main components of modern PPE gear were designed during and after the World Wars. Finding an alternative to conventional gear that uses PFAS would not be a simple, or inexpensive, task.
The IAFF’s attempt to use the courts to enact justice may fall short due to systemic issues. In other words, “…judges and prosecutors operating in a capitalistic, political economy are going to be unlikely to make rulings that promote environmental protection and environmental justice at the expense of economic growth”. Per the Treadmill of Production lens, decision-makers in the current judicial system would rather promote the economy rather than environmental justice. This leads to the next issue, which occurs in the event that a judge sides with the environment and those impacted by injustice. Lesser sentences for perpetrating corporations are an example of cooperation between judges and corporations. The results are fines that make a small dent in yearly revenue rather than significant negative collateral consequences “…associated with criminal prosecutions, such as losing revenue, going bankrupt or laying off employees because fines take up a relatively small portion of corporate yearly gross revenues” 11.
Prior research tracking the impact of fines has shown that “…a company’s economic situation may be considered in setting fines so as not to slow down the treadmill of production” 11. This means that even if penalties are seen as necessary for correcting ecological degradation or environmental risk, sometimes their weight is lessened. Research has been conducted that looks at whether monetary fines for environmental injustices are seen simply as the “cost of doing business” for companies with high yearly corporate earnings, therefore allowing for these injustices to continue. Additionally, this research shows that “…companies with the largest yearly revenues receive the smallest relative fines” 11. Even if the government promises to increase regulation, there is a chance that the implementation of such will still favor profit. This brings us back to the question of how individual people and social movements can help facilitate a more productive relationship between the state and capital which benefits the environment. In modern-day, media coverage of social issues can be highly beneficial for raising awareness and increasing pressure on corporations.
The internet and online publications are examples of possible middle ground where individuals can voice their concerns and communicate indirectly with decision-makers. One study summarizes that “virtual protest can influence institutional politics by creating symbolic change, highlighting economic disparities, identifying targets of blame, and keeping the issues in the news and in broader political conversation”. Diane Cotter submitted a written account of her testimony to the House Committee on Energy & Commerce on “Protecting Americans at Risk of PFAS Contamination & Exposure” to Medium, an online publishing platform where anyone can post their thoughts. 2 By sharing her and her husband’s battle with PFAS-induced cancer and anger towards inaction from DuPont, Cotter was able to raise awareness in a way that is more accessible to the public than a federal meeting room. Attached to this article are various links to press releases, government publications, and research on occupational PFAS exposure that allow a new reader to quickly understand and empathize with the plight of firefighters nationwide.
In addition, the testimonies of dozens of others impacted by firefighter PFAS illness were included in this article, sharing heartbreaking stories of men and women who lost their lives protecting our country, and of those who carry their stories forward. Joseph Marchetti, Deputy Chief of Brockton Fire Department in Massachusetts, illustrated his battle with two different types of cancer. 2 Daniel Russ shared that both himself and his wife, who had washed his firefighting clothing for nearly forty years, were diagnosed with cancer. 2 Another story was about Tom Hill, a retired Central Florida firefighter who lost his two best friends to cancer and was frustrated by political inaction. Hill walked nearly 800 miles carrying mementos from lost firefighters whose families had reached out to him wanting to participate. More and more firefighters joined Hill on his walk and the movement is now called “Carrying My Brother’s Burden”. 2 Two other firefighters from Florida, Jazz Zombo, and Heather Mazurkiewicz, were also featured in Cotter’s post for their work protesting on the steps of the Capitol. 2 These stories are difficult to ignore, tugging on the heartstrings of readers who understand the threat wildfires pose in America, not to mention other fire-related disasters. It is important for working people to have a platform to speak on, especially when going up against major corporations with highly funded marketing teams.
Leveraging social media is one example of a potential way individuals can hit the brakes on the Treadmill of Production. Although there is significant discussion about this issue happening within federal and industry spheres, the main source of mobilizing power will come from those who are most impacted. Treadmill of Production theorists tend to focus more on analyzing the process of capitalism rather than any social movements that aim to oppose capitalism. 7 However, it could be argued that the values driving the capitalist economy can only be usurped by a greater valuation for human health and wellbeing. Although online communication and virtual protesting cannot be the only solution, nor is it realistic that social media is a perfect answer to mobilizing individuals. However, access to more conventional solutions, such as systemic reforms stemming from industry and government, is complicated and tends to strategically ignore the needs of people.
Due to the systemic inequality and heightening climate issues, the health of frontline workers, marginalized communities, and historically underprivileged groups needs to be paid more attention. At-risk groups such as firefighters facing PFAS-related illness need open platforms to be able to share their stories so that the relationship between the state and capital is influenced by those in need. Through a critical lens, the structures which have long perpetuated a profit-driven system can be examined, better understood, and navigated to ensure justice. The power imbalance between DuPont and the IAFF, despite federal support for regulations of PFAS in gear, illustrates the need for this critical lens.
