A group of 22 states and U.S. territories on Wednesday moved to block a proposed $10.3 billion settlement that would resolve claims against 3M Co (MMM.N) over water pollution tied to “forever chemicals,” claiming the deal fails to adequately hold the company accountable.
16 replies (most recent on top)
3M is one of many firms responsible for the PFAS contamination of drinking water. The company must pay for their environmental damage. Over the course of the next decade, it may come to $50 billion or even more.
Up Next: Earplug Litigation
I hope they can be successful to block 3M, and ballon its liability to 50 billions.
No firm would spend billions to settle litigation with regard to a non-existent. Any suggestion to the contrary is ludicrous.
You Say Tomato, I Say Tomato.
You Say PFAS, I Say Poison.
You Say Prove It, I Say Corpse
You’re in denial. Sit down!
“3M has specifically NOT admitted wrongdoing.”
There are numerous examples whereby public figures never admit mistakes. In fact they describe their actions as “perfect.”
Only one person apologized to the 9/11 families for not getting the intelligence right. Only one.
Mr. Roman and his handpicked senior staff will never admit they made any mistakes. It is an unforgivable character flaw that no 64 year-old will correct.
Varys, agreed that 3M has not admitted wrongdoing. And while there is indeed a healthy list of PFAS manufacturers today, there was a single primary manufacturer of PFOS in the US: 3M. PFOS—one of the worst PFAS—is banned globally under the Stockholm Convention, for good reason. It is rare that the entire globe agrees to ban something. Yet they did so for PFOS.
The fact that 3M was the only material PFOS manufacturer in the US is not speculation. It is an admission by 3M’s OWN EXPERT.
Actual deposition testimony from 3M’s expert on 7/24/20 which is a matter of public record (I can picture 3M counsel vomiting listening to their own expert give this testimony)…
Q. And based on what you know, sir, about the persistence of PFOS, the overwhelming majority of every molecule of PFOS that's ever been manufactured by 3M is still in existence, correct?
A. That's quite likely. I like your verbiage, the overwhelming majority, that's probably correct. I don't have any actual factual data on that, but that would be my supposition, based on what I know about PFOS.
Q. Yes, sir. So based on what we know about the manufacturing and based on what we know about its persistence, it's just a matter of mathematical probability, that if we find a molecule of PFOS in the environment, particularly here in the United States, more likely than not, 3M is the source; is that fair?
A. That's more likely than not. I know that there's a company in Italy that has manufactured PFOS. There might be other people who have, but I would say just on a proportional basis it's more likely than not.
Q. It's almost certainly true on a proportional basis, just again, from a mathematical perspective, it's most certainly true that if you find a molecule of PFOS in the environment, particularly here in the United States, it's from 3M, fair?
A. That's fair, and one can look at the branching profile of it and get a good idea of that as well.
Q. And I know you probably think I'm belaboring the point, but, in your view…the source, I guess, based on mathematical probability, if we find PFOS in human br---t milk, more likely than not it's from 3M, fair?
A. Yeah. Again, as I said, I'm not going to disagree with that premise, so that's fair.
Q. Okay. And, sir, you're aware that PFOS has been detected in arctic mammals?
A. Yes, I'm certainly aware of that…
Q. And it's famously discussed that you can find PFOS in polar bear blood, correct?
A. Right, that's correct.
Q. And I know you feel like I'm belaboring the point, but there's no question in your mind that the source of PFOS in the polar
bear is from 3M, right?
A. I -- again, it's certainly more likely than not, yes.
Q. Rivers and streams, you're aware that PFOS has been detected and reported in rivers and streams?
A. Yes. Yeah, I have awareness of that, mm-hmm.
Q. And you're aware that PFOS has been detected in ocean waters, both the Atlantic and the Pacific?
A. Yes.
Q. And you're aware that PFOS has been detected in drinking water in the United States and elsewhere, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you're aware that PFOS has been detected in human blood?
A. I'm aware of that, yes.
Q. You're aware that PFOS has been detected in umbilical cord blood as well, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. It has been detected in shellfish?
A. Yes, there's a question there, yes.
Q. Has it been detected in fish?
A. Yes.
Q. It's been detected in indoor house
A. Yes.
Q. And daycare dust, right?
A. Yes, based on the paper by…, yes.
Q. And I apologize, I'm just going to make this little movie clip, and we'll move on. Has it been detected in outdoor air?
A. Yes.
Q. It's been detected in human br---t milk as well, correct, sir?
A. That's correct.
Q. And last but not least, it's been detected in polar bear blood, right?
A. As well as other arctic mammals, yes, mm-hmm.
Q. Yes, sir. And each and every one of these media all around the world…the source of PFOS is more likely than not 3M, correct?
A: …Yes, I mean, I -- other than the fact that there might be some manufacturing, I think that more likely than not, the source is 3M, yes.
3M has specifically NOT admitted wrongdoing.
Doesn't matter if other companies are problematic. 3m admitted wrong.
And the hits just keep on coming …
"Does anyone really believe there are 100’s or even dozen’s of PFAS and PFOS manufacturers???"
Yes, here is your starting list of a dozen as requested:
- 3M
- DuPont / Dow / Chemours
- W.L. Gore
- Daikin
- Arkema
- Asahi Glass Co. (AGC)
- Solvay
- Mitsui
- Air Products
- Honeywell
- SABIC
- Saint-Gobain
I could keep going, and I haven't even touched on China or India.
"It is called the “forever chemical”"
That is not a scientific term or even a well defined term. It is a marketing term used to provoke an emotional response. Do you also panic because "diamonds are forever"? Diamond has a better claim to being a 'forever chemical' than any PFAS.
From 3M’s pfas.3M.com site.
“Are all PFAS alike?
No. Individual materials have their own unique properties and uses – in fact, they can be solids, liquids or gas. Scientifically, individual PFAS are no more alike than rubbing alcohol and alcohol found in food and beverages.”
The problem with misrepresentations and lies is that it becomes more and more difficult to keep the story straight. 3M knew for decades that this chemical was toxic and that it was spreading into water, people’s blood, bird eggs, and even polar bears. Does anyone really believe there are 100’s or even dozen’s of PFAS and PFOS manufacturers??? It’s time for 3M to be honest with employees, stockholders, and people around the world that continue to be exposed to this 3M chemical everyday. Will it end in 2025? It is called the “forever chemical”.
I think there is some confusion in a lot of people's minds about what PFAS means. How many are there? How many companies make/made them? How many other companies used them to make other products? Some people may think there are only two or that these are the only two problem ones (PFOA and PFOS) even though the statement does say "two forms".
I'm not seeing the lie you are accusing 3M of making in your post...
- 3M did invent PFOA and PFOS, in the 1940s, but the compounds are not unique to 3M by any means. Their patents expired in the 1960s allowing others to make it.
- DuPont had a factory making it in the US, even after 3M shut down, and there are still several factories (non-3M, non-DuPont) making it in Asia.
- 3M did phase out of PFOA and PFOS production in the early 2000's. I don't recall the last date of 3M production, but it would have been right around 20 years ago.
So, where is the lie?
This statement was made on earning's call. "We were the first company to exit the manufacturing of two forms of PFAS, namely PFOA and PFOS, which we announced more than 20 years ago." Last shred of ethics now gone. This is a lie and dishonest. This chemical was invented by 3M and unique to 3M. Corporate gaslighting.
3M has been trying to spin this “settlement” as a huge step in the legal process. In reality, it is just the beginning. Considering the global effects of their contamination, the10+ billion dollars is just a drop in the bucket, so to speak.
19 states, including Minnesota....