Three points in response to your superb Oct. 2 editorial commending Maine’s action to reduce PFAS contamination in view of threats to the Clean Water Act (“Our View: Honor Clean Water Act’s 50 years with efforts to emulate it”).

First, it is true that minuscule amounts of PFAS chemicals are damaging to human health. Because they do not degrade, there are serious body-burden implications of exposure to them wherever they occur, including in pharmaceutical drugs – perfluorinated for increased molecular stability – a category of which people are generally unaware.

Case in point: Asked during a public radio program (Maine Calling, Sept. 26) to comment on disclosing risks of Paxlovid to COVID patients, the state CDC director and the program host shut down the discussion. That Paxlovid is a drug containing PFAS is a fact readily verifiable. Whether from ignorance or refusal to acknowledge an inconvenient truth, Dr. Shah’s misrepresentation has serious consequences. He would deprive patients of a key fact required for informed consent about medical care.

Second, you are right to point out that pesticides containing PFAS are to be phased out in Maine by 2030. But not all PFAS pesticides will be banned, unfortunately. Some will be exempted in rule-making that favors corporate interests over public health.

Third, until 2030 sales of all perfluorinated items, except carpets and fabric treatments, will continue in Maine as usual. We would all be better served, arguably, if manufacturers were pressured instead to make products without PFAS.

Jody Spear
Harborside

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Letter to the editor: LePage doesn’t want what Maine wants and Maine doesn’t want LePage

Next »

Letter to the editor: Perfection is the enemy of electrification