Superfund Research Program
January 2025
By Lindsay Key
A panel of experts that included Superfund Research Program (SRP) grant recipients Laurel Schaider, Ph.D., and Sue Fenton, Ph.D., testified before Congress on Dec. 5 about the advantages and disadvantages of using PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, in consumer products.
PFAS are manmade chemicals that have been used since the 1940s in various products, including non-stick cookware, stain-resistant carpet, semi-conductors, firefighting foam, cosmetics, and medical equipment. Known as “forever chemicals” because of their inability to break down, high levels of some types of PFAS have been linked to low birth weights, fertility and thyroid problems, cancer, and other diseases.
The hearing was organized by the Subcommittee on Chemical Safety, Waste Management, Environmental Justice, and Regulatory Oversight that is part of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environmental & Public Works.
“This is a public health challenge and we want to understand it better,” said U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon in his opening remarks."
Reducing PFAS in the environment

During her testimony, Schaider, a senior scientist at Silent Spring Research Institute and a researcher at the University of Rhode Island SRP Center, noted that PFAS have been found in nearly every corner of the globe and in most Americans whose blood has been tested for them. Her own research has discovered them in food packaging and in children’s clothing and furnishings and helped inform a 2022 New York State decision to keep PFAS out of food packaging.
Current water and waste treatment practices fail to fully remove PFAS from the environment, leading to contamination of food, soil, and water, said Schaider. She pointed to a 2023 USGS report that found that millions of Americans are drinking PFAS-laden tap water. Some of the highest levels of contamination are found near industrial facilities, military bases, and airports where aqueous firefighting foam, or AFFF, has been used in training and to fight fires, she explained.
“Although all of us have PFAS in our bodies, some communities and individuals have much higher levels than others,” said Schaider. “We need comprehensive strategies to address PFAS contamination, identify and reduce exposures, support impacted communities, and ultimately eliminate unnecessary uses of these harmful chemicals.”Balancing Risks with Consumer Needs

Fenton, of the North Carolina State University SRP Center, shared her research into the health impacts of PFAS, highlighting the specific risks that pregnant women and their babies face from exposure. Infants exposed to high levels of PFAS in the womb or through their mother’s breast milk are at risk for a smaller birth weight and suppressed immune system, she said. Fenton also directs the NIEHS-funded Center for Human Health and Environment.
Congress also heard from Michael Larranaga, Ph.D., President and Managing Principal of R.E.M. Risk Consultants who testified on behalf of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Larranaga explained that from an industry perspective, PFAS are necessary in some instances. For example, he said, the use of fluorine free foams, a replacement for AFFF, is not nearly as effective in fighting fires.
“We must manage these chemicals responsibly and balance their use against the risk of alternatives,” Larranaga said.
Establishing PFAS Cleanup Plans
The hearing concluded with discussion about PFAS cleanup strategies in the United States. For example, Fenton stated that multiple cities are using granular activated charcoal systems to remove PFAS from drinking water.
“Eleven states have already figured out how to do this, and some of them are doing it without increasing the water bill to their constituents,” said Fenton.
Merkley said that he appreciated the experts weighing in on this important and complicated topic, and that his committee would consider their testimonies as they explore the health issue further. Full testimony and a video of the hearing are available.