On the 10th, the procuratorial department of California, the United States, announced that 3M, DuPont and 16 other chemical enterprises had been sued, accusing them of concealing the fact that a class of chemical products had polluted the environment and harmed public health for a long time, and demanding that they make up the cost of cleaning up the pollution.

Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, said that the polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals produced by the defendant's enterprises have been used in a variety of consumer products since the 1940s and 1950s, including fire extinguishing agents, non stick pans, cleaning spray, waterproof sporting goods, anti fouling carpets, cosmetics, because such compounds are extremely difficult to degrade in the natural environment, and once they enter the human blood, they will also be stored for a long time, known as "permanent chemicals".

The prosecution pointed out that the defendant enterprise had known for decades that such chemicals were "toxic and harmful to human health and the environment, but continued to produce and use them in large quantities, and concealed the harm from the public", allowing the relevant chemical substances to seep into the soil, waterways and consumers' bodies, violating the laws on consumer rights and environmental protection in California. The prosecution also cited a federal law provision requiring the defendant's enterprise to pay back the cost of cleaning up harmful substances that seep into the soil and water.

The prosecution pointed out that after years of investigation, it was found that the defendant enterprise knew that the products containing PFAS had the risk of causing cancer, developmental disorders, osteoporosis and other diseases, but it continued to promote such products to the public.

In fact, this is not the first time DuPont and 3M have been prosecuted for PFAS pollution. DuPont and 3M were sued by New Hampshire and Michigan for PFAS pollution respectively in 2019 and 2020, and were required to take effective measures to reduce the damage caused by "fluorochemicals" to the public.

According to Holly Froum, a Bloomberg intelligence analyst, 3M is facing more than 2000 lawsuits from individuals, water authorities, states and cities. It is alleged that the pollution caused by PFAS chemicals may cause it to lose 30 billion dollars, including remediation costs.

In addition, Wisconsin and North Carolina are also among the states that sue 3M, DuPont and other companies for PFAS pollution related to specific water sources or products.

"Due to decades of deception, PFAS exists in our waters, our clothes, our houses, and even our bodies," Bonta said in a statement. The damage caused by 3M, DuPont and other PFAS manufacturers is shocking. If we do not take serious action, California will deal with the harm of these toxic chemicals for generations.

According to Bonta, about 98% of the 39 million people in California can detect PFAS residues in their blood. This substance is also widely found in California's drinking water sources, lakes, rivers, wild animals and plants.

3M issued a statement after the court submitted that it "took responsible actions against the products containing PFAS and will defend its environmental management records.

DuPont stated that DuPont had never produced fire extinguishing agent or PFOA and PFOS, two PFAS compounds. The company believed that California prosecutors would "accuse the wrong person" and actively maintain DuPont's "reputation for safeguarding safety, health and the environment".

US: DuPont and 3M both denied the relevant allegations

According to the Associated Press, American enterprises have automatically phased out the production of PFAS toxic compounds, but a certain number of products are still on the market.

In June, the United States Environmental Protection Agency prompted the state and territory governments to apply to the federal government for funds to clean up pollutants such as PFAS in drinking water according to the newly issued infrastructure construction law. According to the EPA, such chemicals are more dangerous than previously thought, and may pose a health risk even if the content is too low to be detected.