Thursday, October 1, 2026
As the effects of PFAS, the so-called “forever chemicals,” become the focus of discussions across the United States — on Long Island because of their impacts on the underground water table, our sole source of potable water — New York state’s attorney general is suing corporations involved with PFAS for allegedly violating a number of state laws.
In a suit brought in July in State Supreme Court, Letitia James presented corporate documents as evidence that DuPont and other companies knew about PFAS’ threats to human health and the environment, but pushed products made with them anyway.
And last month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called on Lee Zeldin, a Suffolk County resident who now heads the Environmental Protection Agency, to, as Newsday reported, take “steps to protect Long Island drinking water from forever chemicals as the agency proposes rollbacks on [their] regulations.”
In addition to DuPont, which first developed PFAS in 1938 and patented them as Teflon, James’s lawsuit charges 3M, Chemours, Corteva and its subsidiary EIDP with violations of state laws, including: “Protection of the State’s Natural Resources Under New York State Constitution and Statutory Law; Public Nuisance Under New York Common Law; Strict Products Liability: Failure to Warn Under New York Common Law.” It also cites the “Green Amendment” to the State Constitution, which “provides that ‘each person shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthful environment.’”
The lawsuit states: “As a consequence of the defendants’ manufacture, production, marketing and sale of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — PFAS — for use in consumer products, the State of New York faces threats to human health, widespread contamination, and damage to natural resources on an unprecedented scale.”
It continues: “Long after they knew their PFAS were toxic, defendants manufactured and sold these compounds for use in consumer products — including personal, family, and household products like Stainmaster carpets, Scotchgard stain-repellent sprays, grease-resistant coatings for food packaging, cosmetics, and personal care items — that defendants knew would be sold, used, and disposed of in New York, thereby exposing people to PFAS and releasing PFAS into New York’s environment.”
It goes on: “As the results of defendants’ conduct, PFAS … are in the water we drink, the soil that sustains our crops, the fish we catch, and the air we breathe. … PFAS are highly resistant to degradation in the environment, travel easily through water and air, and bioaccumulate in humans, plants and animals.
And: “People exposed to defendants’ PFAS suffer various negative health effects, including higher risks of certain cancers, adverse pregnancy outcomes, liver disease, endocrine disruption, and other increased risks.”
As evidence of “knowledge” — that the companies knew about the “severe health and environmental risks” of PFAS — the lawsuit points to numerous corporate documents. DuPont, it says, “knew for decades that PFAS pose substantial dangers to public health and the environment. By 1961 … Dupont’s researchers had concluded that PFOA [a type of PFAS] was toxic … Dupont’s chief toxicologist warned in a memo that products containing PFOA should be ‘handled with extreme care.’ As early as 1966 … DuPont was aware that PFOA could leach into groundwater. … DuPont also learned in the 1970s … of the research showing that PFAS had been detected in blood bank samples from the general public.
“In 1988,” the suit continues, “DuPont began internally treating PFOA as a possible carcinogen. … In 2000, John R. Bowman … DuPont in-house counsel wrote … to several colleagues relating to PFOA …‘My gut tells me the biopersistence issue will kill us … We are going to spend millions to defend these lawsuits and have the additional threat of punitive damage.’”
A New York Times article on the lawsuit quotes Judith Enck, former director of the EPA region that includes New York state and now president of the organization Beyond Plastics, saying, “This is a blockbuster legal action that should hold these companies accountable for the immense harm caused by their products.”
Schumer wrote to Zeldin, “At your confirmation hearing … you told the Senate that you had been a member of the PFAS task force [in Congress], that you voted for the PFAS Action Act, and that addressing PFAS would be a top priority of yours. The proposals now before the agency move in the other direction.”
Karl Grossman has been an investigative reporter in a variety of media for more than 50 years. He is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York at Old Westbury.
