How a handful of chemical companies are deploying the tobacco industry’s playbook to delay regulation while contaminating the global environment

9.25

The author is an undercover investigative journalist specializing in corporate influence and environmental policy.

Research for this article was supported by documents housed at the UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library and lobbying disclosures maintained by OpenSecrets.org.

In 1970, a confidential memo circulated within DuPont’s laboratories contained a stark assessment: the company’s miracle chemical C8—now known as one of thousands of PFAS compounds—was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested.” The finding came from DuPont’s own Haskell Laboratory, the same facility that had helped establish the safety protocols for many of the company’s most profitable products.

Yet for the next thirty years, DuPont would tell a very different story to its employees, regulators, and the public. In 1980, even as internal studies documented birth defects among pregnant plant workers, the company assured its workforce that C8 “has a lower toxicity, like table salt.” A decade later, faced with mounting evidence of groundwater contamination near its Parkersburg, West Virginia facility, DuPont issued a press release declaring that its chemical had “no known toxic or ill health effects in humans at concentration levels detected.”

This systematic campaign of deception, documented in thousands of internal company communications made public through litigation, reveals how a small number of chemical manufacturers have employed the tobacco industry’s most effective tactics to delay regulation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—the “forever chemicals” now found in the blood of virtually every American and in ecosystems from Antarctica to the deepest ocean trenches.

The parallels are not coincidental. As lawmakers increasingly recognize PFAS as one of the most serious environmental health threats of the modern era, the chemical industry has deployed the same strategic playbook that allowed tobacco companies to forestall meaningful regulation for decades: suppress unfavorable research, fund studies designed to create scientific confusion, establish front groups that appear independent, and spend unprecedented sums on lobbying and political influence.

The Architecture of Delay

The scope of the industry’s current influence campaign should stun every one of us. Since 2019, eight major PFAS manufacturers have spent $55.7 million on lobbying efforts specifically mentioning these chemicals, while the American Chemistry Council—the industry’s primary trade association—has spent an additional $58.7 million over the same period. In 2024 alone, the Chemistry Council’s lobbying expenditures reached $22.3 million, part of what researchers describe as the chemical industry’s record-breaking $65.9 million in total lobbying spending in 2022.

These figures represent only federal lobbying efforts. The industry’s influence extends deep into state politics, academic research, and public discourse through a sophisticated network of ostensibly independent organizations.

The Cookware Sustainability Alliance, established in 2024 by cookware giants Groupe SEB and Meyer Corporation, exemplifies this approach. Organized as a 501(c)(6) nonprofit, the alliance has spent $70,000 in its first year coordinating opposition to state-level PFAS bans, working alongside the California Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, and the California Manufacturing and Technology Association.

The alliance’s strategy centers on recruiting prominent public figures to serve as credible voices for industry positions. When California’s legislature considered SB 682—a bill banning PFAS in cookware and other consumer products—the alliance orchestrated letters of opposition from celebrity chefs including Rachael Ray, David Chang, Thomas Keller, and Marcus Samuelsson. Ray’s letter, distributed by the alliance, argued that polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), “when manufactured and used responsibly, are proven to be safe and effective.”

The timing of Ray’s intervention was particularly revealing. Just months after opposing California’s PFAS ban, her cookware brand launched a new ceramic line explicitly marketed as “made without forever chemicals”—suggesting that even industry advocates recognize consumer demand for safer alternatives.

The Exxon Connection

Perhaps the most damaging revelation about the industry’s tactics emerged not from leaked documents but from an executive’s own words. In May 2021, Keith McCoy, ExxonMobil’s senior director of federal relations, was recorded by an undercover journalist describing the company’s behind-the-scenes campaign against PFAS regulation.

“We use it in our firefighting equipment,” McCoy explained, “so we have pushed our [trade] associations to be out front on that… to say some things about PFAS that we definitely don’t want to be out front talking about.” The strategy, McCoy revealed, involved lobbying Congress “under the guise” of trade associations like the American Petroleum Institute to avoid public association with the chemicals.

McCoy’s candid assessment revealed the industry’s understanding of both the chemicals’ persistence and their own vulnerability. “They’re called forever chemicals,” he noted, “which basically means these chemicals never, never, deteriorate, you know they stay in the environment forever.” Yet rather than accepting responsibility for this contamination, McCoy boasted that ExxonMobil’s lobbying had successfully delayed comprehensive regulation by convincing lawmakers to fund additional studies instead of taking immediate action.

The recording, obtained by Greenpeace’s investigative arm Unearthed, offered a rare glimpse into what California Congressman Alan Lowenthal characterized as the same “delay, deny and distract tactics” that “have been used by these industries for decades in the debate over addressing climate change, just as the tobacco industry did decades before.”

A Global Influence Campaign

The industry’s influence extends well beyond American borders. The Forever Lobbying Project, a year-long investigation coordinated by Le Monde and involving 46 journalists from 16 countries, documented an unprecedented corporate campaign to undermine the European Union’s proposed comprehensive PFAS ban. Industry stakeholders submitted 5,642 comments totaling over 100,000 pages to EU regulators—a response one academic described as making “the work of other politically active industries, like Big Tobacco, look small-time in comparison.”

The investigation revealed that many of the industry’s core arguments were “fearmongering, false, misleading, or potentially dishonest,” according to the journalists’ analysis. Yet these same arguments have been adopted by politicians and policymakers across multiple jurisdictions, demonstrating the effectiveness of the industry’s messaging strategy.

The economic stakes help explain the industry’s aggressive response.

European researchers calculate that properly cleaning up PFAS contamination across the EU could cost €2 trillion over the next 20 years—€100 billion annually—if current emission patterns continue. Rather than accepting responsibility for these costs, PFAS manufacturers have chosen to invest heavily in political influence campaigns designed to shift the cleanup burden to taxpayers.

The Science of Harm

The health consequences that industry executives have worked to obscure are increasingly difficult to ignore.

PFAS chemicals have been linked to kidney and testicular cancers, liver damage, decreased fertility, increased cholesterol, and immune system dysfunction. Because these compounds bioaccumulate in human tissue and never break down naturally, exposure levels increase over time with continued contact.

Recent research has revealed particularly troubling pathways of exposure through everyday activities. Studies show that heating food in plastic containers can release millions of microplastic particles, while cutting vegetables on plastic cutting boards generates approximately 15 milligrams of microplastics per cut—equivalent to consuming ten plastic credit cards worth of particles annually. As non-stick cookware ages, its PTFE coating degrades into PFAS-laden microplastics that researchers have detected in human urine and semen.

Indoor air quality studies suggest that people may inhale up to 68,000 microplastic particles daily, with concentrations particularly high in urban environments. These microscopic particles—some smaller than viruses—can penetrate the blood-brain barrier and accumulate in organs throughout the body. Recent studies have linked microplastic exposure to doubled risks of heart attacks and strokes among people with cardiovascular disease, while animal research demonstrates disruptions to gut biomes, reduced sperm quality, and impaired cognitive function.

Perhaps most concerning, emerging research indicates that microplastics smaller than 10 micrometers can penetrate the placental barrier, potentially exposing developing fetuses to these persistent contaminants during the most vulnerable period of human development.

Where is Americas “Doctor” RFK JR

Political Capture in Practice

The industry’s political influence operates through multiple channels, with campaign contributions flowing to key legislators at strategically important moments. Food & Water Watch’s analysis of Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members—who have jurisdiction over major PFAS legislation—found that two-thirds received donations from major chemical companies between 2019 and 2022, with more than half accepting money from the American Chemistry Council.

The timing of some contributions suggests coordination with legislative activities. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina received $1,000 from DuPont’s political action committee on the same day he cast the decisive vote killing a National Defense Authorization Act amendment that would have held PFAS manufacturers liable for cleanup costs. Five days later, Tillis received an additional $3,000 from Honeywell’s PAC.

These financial relationships help explain the legislative gridlock surrounding PFAS regulation. Despite more than 130 bills introduced in Congress between 2019 and 2022 addressing various aspects of PFAS contamination, only four became law, and none established comprehensive manufacturer liability for cleanup costs. The PFAS Action Act, which would have designated major PFAS compounds as hazardous substances under the Superfund program, passed the House twice but died in the Senate Environment Committee both times.

The Revolving Door

The industry’s influence extends beyond direct lobbying and campaign contributions to the more subtle but equally important realm of personnel exchanges between companies and regulatory agencies. Former chemical industry executives regularly move into government positions overseeing environmental policy, while career regulators often join chemical companies or their trade associations after leaving public service.

This “revolving door” creates networks of personal and professional relationships that can shape policy decisions in ways that formal lobbying disclosures never capture. When former EPA officials join chemical companies, they bring intimate knowledge of regulatory processes, ongoing investigations, and the personal dynamics within agencies. Similarly, when industry executives move into government positions, they maintain relationships and perspectives developed during their corporate careers.

Academic research presents another avenue for industry influence. Chemical companies fund university studies, sponsor academic conferences, and provide research grants that can shape scientific agendas in subtle but important ways. While this funding doesn’t necessarily compromise individual researchers’ integrity, it can influence which questions get investigated and how results are interpreted and disseminated.

International Implications

The global nature of chemical manufacturing means that regulatory decisions in one jurisdiction have worldwide consequences. Companies can shift production to countries with less stringent environmental rules, while products manufactured with PFAS in unregulated markets can still reach consumers in jurisdictions with stronger protections.

The industry’s strategy appears designed to exploit these regulatory gaps. Internal documents suggest that companies view jurisdiction-shopping as a viable long-term strategy, moving production and research activities to locations where oversight is minimal or non-existent. This approach allows manufacturers to maintain global market access while avoiding the costs associated with developing safer alternatives.

Climate change adds another dimension to this dynamic. PFAS compounds are increasingly used in renewable energy technologies, electric vehicle batteries, and other products marketed as environmentally beneficial. Industry advocates argue that restricting these chemicals could undermine climate goals—a messaging strategy that attempts to position environmental protection as a zero-sum choice between different types of ecological harm.

The Path Forward

The chemical industry’s influence campaign shows signs of following the same trajectory as tobacco regulation. Internal documents are emerging through litigation, revealing the gap between corporate knowledge and public statements. Independent research is documenting health effects despite industry-funded studies designed to create confusion. Public awareness is growing as contamination becomes harder to ignore.

Several developments suggest that the industry’s strategy of indefinite delay may be reaching its limits. The European Union’s comprehensive PFAS restriction, despite industry opposition, could create global precedents that make continued production economically unviable. State-level legislation in Minnesota, California, and other jurisdictions is creating a patchwork of regulations that increases compliance costs and regulatory uncertainty.

Legal liability presents perhaps the most significant threat to the industry’s long-term strategy. As the health effects of PFAS exposure become better documented and the gap between corporate knowledge and public disclosure becomes more apparent, manufacturers face increasing exposure to lawsuits seeking damages for environmental cleanup and personal injury claims.

Baltimore’s recent lawsuit against plastic manufacturers for environmental contamination represents a new model that could be replicated by other municipalities facing cleanup costs. If courts begin holding manufacturers liable for the full social costs of PFAS contamination, the economic calculations that currently favor continued production and lobbying over investment in safer alternatives could shift dramatically.

The Costs of Delay

The ultimate tragedy of the chemical industry’s delay tactics lies not in their sophistication but in their effectiveness. Every year that comprehensive regulation is postponed means additional PFAS release into environments where these compounds will persist indefinitely. Unlike tobacco smoke, which dissipates after exposure ends, PFAS contamination represents a permanent addition to the global ecosystem.

Current estimates suggest that virtually every American has detectable levels of PFAS in their bloodstream, with concentrations increasing over time as exposure continues. Environmental contamination has reached ecosystems previously considered pristine, from Antarctic ice sheets to the deepest ocean trenches. Cleanup technologies, where they exist at all, are expensive and energy-intensive, making remediation economically challenging even where the political will exists.

The industry’s success in delaying regulation means that future generations will inherit a planet where PFAS contamination is simply part of the baseline environmental condition. Unlike previous environmental challenges that could be addressed through emission controls or technological substitution, the persistence of these compounds means that current contamination represents an essentially permanent burden on human and ecological health.

The chemical industry’s adoption of tobacco’s regulatory delay playbook has proved remarkably effective at protecting short-term corporate profits. Whether this strategy can indefinitely postpone the eventual reckoning with the environmental and health consequences of PFAS contamination remains to be seen. What seems certain is that the longer comprehensive action is delayed, the higher the ultimate costs—financial, environmental, and human—will prove to be.

In boardrooms across the chemical industry, executives continue to make the same calculation that guided their tobacco counterparts for decades: the costs of regulation and liability exceed the costs of influence campaigns designed to delay them. The question facing policymakers, and ultimately the public, is how long society will continue to accept this arithmetic while the environmental and health costs compound with each passing year.

---