Cally Edgren: 0:03

For manufacturers who use PFAS, I've had dozens of customers tell me that they have gotten these calls from their insurance companies saying, do you use PFAS? Because if so, we're not covering the eventual cleanup. I mean, it's going to come. The EPA already passed a few laws earlier this year around drinking water and the superfund to start calling out specific PFAS.

Tom Raftery: 0:29

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are in the world. This is the Sustainable Supply Chain Podcast, the number one podcast focusing on sustainability and supply chains, and I'm your host, Tom Raftery. Hi everyone. And welcome to episode 33 of the sustainable supply chain podcast. My name is Tom Raftery. And you'll have to excuse me if my voice sounds a little ropey today, but I have a bit of a cold. Apologies about that. Before we kick off, I want to make a quick announcement. We have a new supporter of the podcast. Kieran Ognev signed up during the week. Kieran I hope I'm pronouncing your name correctly. Signed up during the week to support the podcast so, thanks so much for that Kieran. Without further ado today, I'm going to be talking to Cally Edgrin from Assent on the podcast, and we're going to be talking about forever chemicals, or PFAS, and their implications for supply chain. And in the coming weeks, I'll be talking to Kevin Frechette from FairMarkit about autonomous procurement. Dan Spitale from UPS Capital, Krenar Komoni from Tive about IOT trackers. And Julian Harris, CEO of RobobAI so some excellent episodes on the way. But like I said, back to today's episode where I'm talking to Cally Edgrin from Assent. Cally, welcome to the podcast. Would you like to introduce yourself?. Cally Edgren: Sure. Thanks very much for having me, Tom. My name is Cally Edgren. I work for a company called Assent. Assent is a SaaS company that helps manufacturers engage with their supply chains to collect a lot of different regulatory information, including what their products are made out of. So that they can meet various regulations that would restrict them being able to sell their products. At Assent, I lead a team of regulatory experts, and our role is to really understand the regulations so that we can help our customers understand their legal obligations. Okay. And on this podcast today, we're going to be talking about PFAS, correct?

Cally Edgren: 2:38

Mm hmm. Yes, absolutely.

Tom Raftery: 2:41

So for people who might not be familiar I know that PFAS are per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, but for people who might be unaware, can you give us a rundown on what PFAS are, where they're commonly found and why they're more, they're more colloquially known as forever chemicals.

Cally Edgren: 3:03

Sure, absolutely. And you know, good on you for getting the per and polyfluoroalkyl substances because that's a, that's a real mouthful. Just like many of the material regulations we deal with, we have an acronym and really the reason it's per and poly is because it's a huge family of chemicals. In fact, the US EPA now has a list of almost 17,000 different iterations of these chemicals. They've actually been around since world war two. They were discovered quite by accident, but they are a synthetic chemical. And because they had these amazing material properties, of course, companies started manufacturing different varieties of them, and they're really best known for some very common application characteristics. So, for example, they're waterproof, they're oil proof, they're non stick they have thermal heat resistance, electrical insulating properties. So, from a materials property standpoint, they're actually quite miraculous. And you can imagine over about 70 years that they have found their way into a lot of applications. So manufacturers use them for all kinds of purposes and it really, you would be hard pressed to look around whatever room you're in right now and not have PFAS, you know, everywhere within your eyesight. So they have been used quite a bit. The concern with PFAS is that the handful that have been studied, because again there are over 17,000 of them, but the handful that have been studied have been linked to a number of different health effects including some kidney and testicular cancers low birth weight, even suppressed immunization uptake. And there's a whole host of other ones. So scientists and regulators are starting to get a little bit concerned about how much we use PFAS and how much of them are in our environment. Now, the reason they're called forever chemicals, and this ties back into the health concerns as well, is because the actual properties of PFAS one of the distinguishing factors is that it's a fluorine and carbon atoms are bonded together, and you may have chains of these carbon and fluorine atoms. It's one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry, if not the strongest, and it's very difficult to break. And what that means is that PFAS don't break down, hence the name Forever Chemicals, and they bioaccumulate in our bodies. It's been estimated that at least 97 percent of Americans have PFAS in their bodies right now. Including me, because I had my blood tested for PFAS and it was positive. Or negative, however you want to look at it.

Tom Raftery: 5:56

And how do we get rid of them from our bodies if they bioaccumulate, or can we?

Cally Edgren: 6:04

I think the science is still out on that, Tom. I, you know, for me personally, I've been trying to reduce my PFAS exposure over time where I can. And I'm, I'm going to check. I'm using myself as a science experiment. I'm going to check a year from now and see if I have reduced my levels, but I do think that's probably the best way for people to try and just over time, you know, have it flush out of their bodies. But again, it does bio accumulate, so it's not going to happen overnight.

Tom Raftery: 6:35

Okay. Things we should avoid.

Cally Edgren: 6:41

Well, I would say, you know, from a personal standpoint, a big exposure is ingesting PFAS. And so you see this in your cookware. In fact, a lot of the regulations that have come out are around cookware. You see this in your drinking water. There are now filters that you can have that will filter PFAS out of your drinking water. Food containers that have some type of lining to make them, you know, oil proof like a pizza box. Even microwave popcorn. It's interesting to me to see what products the different states are restricting that the states you know see as huge exposures for PFAS. So we see things like dental floss or ski wax the cookware again is very common. Furniture that has been scotch guarded. Scotch guard is a PFAS. So again anything that's been waterproofed, oil proofed. These are huge exposures for us. And if you're personally trying to cut down, you know, I would say try to limit your exposure for how you bring PFAS into your body.

Tom Raftery: 7:47

Okay, fair enough. And, I mean, you're working specifically in the regulatory environment. Can you give us an idea of I don't know how different regions like the US, Canada and EU are approaching regulation and what should companies be aware of specifically.

Cally Edgren: 8:09

Yeah, so this is, I mean, I've been working in various compliance topics for nearly 30 years and I have never seen anything moving the way these PFAS regulations have moved. In fact we just had a law signed last month in Connecticut that took two and a half months from start to finish. Two and a half months. And it's a complete PFAS ban over time. So, the States especially are extremely aggressive and remember that number that I threw out of how many of us have PFAS in our bodies. If you go back to the drinking water sources that probably over half of them in the US are contaminated with PFAS, at testable levels. And so the states are often the ones and especially municipalities that have to clean that up. And I think that's part of why we see the states being so aggressive over PFAS. 46 states have at least some type of PFAS legislation on the books, and they just keep adding to it. So I would say in the US, that's the most aggressive place we see. And again, we're seeing things from a handful of products like cookware, makeup, you know, menstrual products all the way up to just full all products, types of bans Now over on the EU side, we do see some PFAS already restricted and the main instruments for this are the REACH regulation or the Persistent Organic Pollutants regulation, also called POPS. Although the member states, just like in the US states, the EU member states are starting to issue their own regulations. And that's in part because again, just like the US federal government, the EU level government, just moves more slowly on these topics because they have many more hurdles they have to jump over. They couldn't have, the EPA could not do a two and a half month start to finish type of restriction. Right? So I think that's why we see the member states and the U S states both being very active, but at both the U S federal level and the EU level, again, there are already some PFAS restricted in Europe and there is a huge proposal to restrict all PFAS. In fact, there's a new bill in U. S. Congress for the same thing. So, I would say right now those two jurisdictions are the most active. But we are waiting for Canada this year. Canada already restricts a few PFAS. We are waiting for some major legislation to come through from Canada as well. So, I would not be surprised if eventually Canada and the UK both follow what the US and the EU are doing. In the rest of the world many countries are signatories to the Stockholm Convention and the Stockholm Convention has added some PFAS to their list of all chemicals being restricted.

Tom Raftery: 10:58

Sure, sure, sure, sure, sure. And obviously this is the sustainable supply chain podcast. So what are some of the major impacts that these regulations have on supply chains, particularly regarding, let's say, obsolescence and compliance challenges?

Cally Edgren: 11:16

So I think, you know, the regulations themselves are a driver because companies, you know, they want to follow the law. There are certain laws they have to follow to be able to place their products on the market to be sold. Let's use dental floss again as an example. There are certain states that you won't be able to sell dental floss if it has PFAS. So that's a market access requirement. That means every supplier to a company that makes dental floss has to make sure they don't have PFAS in whatever they're supplying to that customer or they'll lose that business. So to me, actually, while the regulations are a huge driver no less important are the requirements of your customers who are demanding PFAS free materials. And then there's the supply chain. So a huge global supplier is 3M. 3M has announced they are getting out of the PFAS business. You know, 3M and DuPont are pretty well tied to PFAS going back all the way to the beginning and 3M isn't going to make them anymore after 2025. This is not in response to a specific regulation that tells 3M they can't make it, but there's a whole host of other reasons why 3M is doing this. Well, of course, any company that's buying those materials from 3M is suddenly going to have a supply chain shortage. And again, some of these materials are very important for certain properties. If you're trying to waterproof your product and now you can't buy the waterproofing material from 3M, you have a huge problem with your product. So I think that that's where the supply chain may become the biggest driver of all. And again, it's working ahead of the regulations themselves. So supply chain shortages for those materials are going to be very impactful for downstream manufacturers. And of course, the other flip side of that is all of the non PFAS materials will have their demand shoot through the roof and then you're going to be fighting for those materials and maybe the price will go up because of that. So again, I think supply chain, customer demand, regulations, these are three huge drivers impacting manufacturers around this PFAS story.

Tom Raftery: 13:27

Okay. And what about manufacturers who may be unaware that there's PFAS in their supply chain that one of their suppliers has it and is giving it to them in some component or some product that they're using.

Cally Edgren: 13:43

Yeah. So I think again, those same three drivers. In fact, last summer, the US Department of Defense did a released a paper about PFAS. And this was one of their greatest fears is that we may have a supplier three or four tiers away from us putting PFAS in. We don't know about it. They're suddenly going to stop making that. And we won't know until the day that we can't buy it anymore. Right? So it's that unknown risk of supply chain, early obsolescence. That was their biggest concern. I think that manufacturers absolutely have to be engaging with their suppliers on this. Their suppliers have to go upstream to engage with their suppliers. One of the problems with PFAS is there's very few testing methodologies that can detect you know, those thousands of PFAS that we talked about. And so really the only way to know if you have people in your product is to ask whoever put it there in the first place. And again, that may not be your tier one supplier. So the partnership with your suppliers is very important here because you need them doing the same investigation. I don't really know another way that you're going to know they're there and therefore know what is your risk for obsolescence, for regulation, how do you answer your customers until you've asked your suppliers.

Tom Raftery: 15:02

Fair, fair. And what kind of liabilities do manufacturers face if they continue to use PFAS and how can they mitigate those risks?

Cally Edgren: 15:15

Yeah. So, I mentioned that 3M is not getting out of the PFAS business because of regulation. But there's a, an awful lot of litigation going on against 3M. And the litigation really started with the chemical companies that make the PFAS in the first place. But what we're seeing is this litigation is spreading to companies that have used the PFAS in their products as well. So I think this is a huge liability for manufacturers who use it not just the ones who make the PFAS in the first place, especially if your product is exposing consumers to it. So I would say the biggest liability right now is the lawsuits, right? And some of these lawsuits are being brought by private citizens, not even necessarily attorneys general but private citizens as well. And because of this, what we see is a lot of insurers are starting to write exclusions in policies, or drop coverage altogether for manufacturers who use PFAS. I've for manufacturers who use PFAS I've had For manufacturers who use PFAS I've had dozens of customers tell me that they have gotten these calls from their insurance companies saying, do you use PFAS? Because if so, we're not covering the eventual cleanup. I mean, it's going to come. The EPA already passed a few laws earlier this year around drinking water and the superfund to start calling out specific PFAS. So I think this is the biggest issue for manufacturers is, Hey, have you ever had a plant fire? Where maybe you put out the fire with a class B fire extinguisher, and now all of the ground around your plant is contaminated with PFAS, you might be liable for cleaning that up. So, it sounds scary, but I think PFAS litigation is going to dwarf anything like asbestos or tobacco settlements. It's going to dwarf those things. And this is a manufacturer's biggest risk. Again, they need to know where they're even using them in the first place.

Tom Raftery: 17:15

And what kind of timeframe are you talking about for that?

Cally Edgren: 17:19

I mean, the lawsuits are happening now. Yeah, the lawsuits are happening now, but the Superfund and the drinking water regulation updates were just earlier this spring from the EPA. So those will, you know, be going into effect, which gives the EPA tools to force either municipalities to clean up their water, or manufacturers to clean up contamination they've caused. One other note on those municipalities cleaning up the drinking water, they're going to try to figure out who contaminated that drinking water in the first place. And then that litigation will come back from that as well. So again, it's already happening. There, there is no, I can't say this is 10 years from now. We already see, you know, we've seen hundreds of lawsuits around PFAS already.

Tom Raftery: 18:06

Ok, fair enough. Do

Cally Edgren: 18:09

Actually, let me, let me correct that, Tom. We've seen thousands of lawsuits around PFAS, not hundreds.

Tom Raftery: 18:16

Interesting. Okay, cool. Do you have, or can you share any innovative strategies that, you know, you've seen companies adopt to eliminate PFAS from their supply chains?. Cally Edgren: Yeah, it's So again, the first step is to know where you have the PFAS in the first place. And I've seen some companies, frankly, surprised to find them in some places. They didn't you know, necessarily design them in for that purpose, I think, because PFAS have proliferated through so many materials for so many years, you don't always know that they're there. And in some cases, those manufacturers are saying we don't actually need them. So it's easy to design out. So that's great. You know, find where they are, get rid of them. If you can. That's not always the case though. Right. And so what we see is a lot of regulators asking manufacturers, Hey, where are your critical uses for PFAS? And I think the regulators understand that there are some critical uses for PFAS. There are some places. In fact, we see things like medical equipment excluded from some of the regulations. Semiconductor manufacturers are excluded from some of the restriction regulations. So I do think that manufacturers who partner with the regulators, that's a strategy, right? Lobby for those exemptions. However, that doesn't fix the 3M supply chain problem, right? So it can't just be putting all your eggs in that basket. They really do need to start looking for alternatives to design these PFAS out wherever they possibly can because those other forces are still out there beyond the regulators. So again, I think from the innovation side necessity is the mother of invention, right? So we've seen some entire industries already going PFAS free. Textiles is one where a lot of the textile manufacturers have come up with alternative substances to provide some of those waterproofing properties, for example. So I, I think that that's another opportunity for manufacturers right now is to drive some of that redesign innovation. Ok, how sure are we that the alternatives are equally or are not as bad as the PFAS?

Cally Edgren: 21:11

Yeah, we're not, are we? I mean, in, in my world, we call that a regrettable substitution, right? So, even within the PFAS world PFOA which is what in the, I call it the OG of the PFAS world. In fact, that was the subject of the movie Dark Waters, with Mark Ruffalo. So PFOA has been, it's one of the Stockholm Convention substances. It's been largely restricted around the world in a lot of cases. And what happened is the chemical manufacturers made an alternative to PFOA. It's called GenX. GenX may be as bad as or worse than PFOA. You know, I'm not a chemical designer, but that may have been a regrettable substitution. This is the challenge with my whole materials compliance world, quite honestly, especially with synthetic chemicals is until they've been studied sometimes for over time, you don't necessarily know that they're bad, right? So there's no guarantee for sure. But certainly that, that research, which includes testing and, you know, chemical companies trying to find those healthier alternatives. That's a really good start. There are some natural alternatives and it depends on why you're using the PFAS. So sometimes maybe wax can provide the same you know, the same repellent properties that you were using PFAS for. So again, I do think that in some cases there are already some swaps out there, but you know, we don't necessarily know a new chemical designed today, what the long term health effects of that could be.

Tom Raftery: 22:52

Right. Yeah. Something like Wax is great for waterproofing, maybe butter or olive oil for nonstick pans.

Cally Edgren: 23:01

Sure, sure. Yeah. I mean, cast a well seasoned cast iron pan can be wonderful. Right. And I do think that this though is one of the things that we as consumers, so consumers are demanding PFAS free. They need to accept though, that PFAS are used for a reason. They provide fantastic properties. And we as consumers need to understand that to get that PFAS free, we are going to have to give up some things. So I mentioned the dental floss. You know, I use PFAS free dental floss now. It doesn't, it, I don't think it works as well, right? This is just my reality now. A cast iron pan. Takes a little bit more work to maintain than a nice Teflon coated nonstick pan. So, I do think that, you know, as consumers, we need to understand that as well. To get these chemicals out of our environment we'll give up some of the conveniences that we have in our lives right now, and that's just the trade off we have to accept.

Tom Raftery: 24:05

Sure. But the, the, the upside of it is presumably better health.

Cally Edgren: 24:11

That's a pretty good upside, I think. Yeah, better cleaner environment, you know, cleaner water sources. That would be, that would be wonderful, for sure.

Tom Raftery: 24:20

Yeah. Cause I, I remember reading about PFAS and some of the things I mentioned were thyroid issues, immune issues, all these kinds of things. Yeah, those kind of things are better avoided typically.

Cally Edgren: 24:33

Yeah, I mean, they really have been linked to several cancers, low birth weights, you know, even preeclampsia for pregnant women. Babies are being born with PFAS already in them. Yeah, it, it really has been linked to a lot of, of health concerns. And the studies will just go on and on, right? I, again, the challenges 17,000 PFAS. Are they necessarily all the same? Who knows? Because only a handful can be tested for. Only a handful have been studied. And I will say from a regulation standpoint for manufacturers, this is changing the way that materials are regulated because previously we would see most regulations come out substance by substance, right? Lead is restricted in many areas. Mercury is restricted in many areas, but we don't see, you know, a law that just says no heavy metals, right? We see each one of those restricted on its own, but the way the PFAS laws are going, because of the regrettable substitution concern that you brought up before. Regulators are now saying, okay, we see the trick. So instead of doing PFOA, PFAS, Gen X, we're just going to say all PFAS. And manufacturers are standing back saying, wait, you, they're, they're not necessarily all bad. We haven't tested all of them. We haven't studied all of them, but the regulators, I think, are a little concerned that we'll regrettably substitute one for another. So this is a change in product regulations overall to say instead of one at a time, we're just going to address the whole family. And again, I've been doing this for about 30 years. This is a major pivot in how I have to approach materials restrictions because I no longer can focus and test for just one thing. I have to somehow test for, you know, the entire family. It's, it's a game changer, I think.

Tom Raftery: 26:32

Sure, sure, sure. Looking ahead, what trends do you see emerging in supply chain sustainability, particularly in relation to chemical management and PFAS?

Cally Edgren: 26:45

I think again, the supply chain needs to be prepared to provide this information to their customers if they, you know, want to keep them as customers. Because those customers selling to their end users are having to comply with these regulations, but also customer demand. This is, this has been around for at least 20 years that we've been asking suppliers for this information, but I do think it's accelerating and the depth of the information is, is much higher. In my early days, I worked a lot on the EU ROHS regulation, ROHS. ROHS initially restricted six substances, right? So I've gone from the beginning of my career worrying about six substances to now asking about 17,000 substances. So that's the trend. The trend is more deeper. You have to go into your supply chain because these synthetic chemicals are not so easy to detect. And again, the best chance is to ask whoever added them in the first place. So the trend has been long growing. There's nothing new here. Your suppliers need to provide you with that data. But I do think that the suppliers, you know, in some cases they're still resistant, right? But I think they are getting on board now. I see a lot more cooperation there. One interesting note is the US EPA in their final Toxic Substance Control Act PFAS reporting regulation that came out last year and the reporting starts actually this November. They specifically included verbiage that said, you may want to ask your suppliers for this information. So that was interesting that the regulators themselves, you know, are calling that out as the best approach for PFAS for all of those reasons I mentioned before.

Tom Raftery: 28:38

sure, sure. What advice would you give companies just starting to address PFAS in their supply chains? Are there any common pitfalls they should avoid?

Cally Edgren: 28:49

Yes, I absolutely, it's very essential that you communicate with your suppliers and train your suppliers. This is an overwhelming topic, even for people like me who literally spend my, my whole day reading regulations, right? I can't even imagine some of those small suppliers how they could possibly keep up. So I do think that partnership is very important. You can't just ask them, do you have any PFAS without explaining to them what that means, giving them time to go to their suppliers. So I think that communication, but that training is very, very important because otherwise they might just come back and say, nope, we don't have any without really knowing what they're answering. Right? And then suddenly, like the Department of Defense, one day you won't be able to get your parts anymore because 3M, four, you know, tiers away, stopped making something. So, I think viewing your suppliers as a partnership and holding their hands a little bit and training them is a very, very important to getting good quality information, and you may need to go back to them once or twice because I've seen a learning curve in the supply chain. I'm checking, I'm constantly checking, you know, our customers response rates and they are going up. So the suppliers are starting to understand this regulation better, but I, I think like everybody else that knowledge is growing over time. So I would say those are a couple of tips, right? Make sure they know what you're asking for, train them on what's required, give them time to ask their suppliers and just go back once or twice because they probably will have more information over time.

Tom Raftery: 30:28

Cool, cool. And how can listeners stay informed and engaged with the latest developments in this field?

Cally Edgren: 30:35

Boy, it's, it's very difficult. I would say one of the toughest things is tracking the state laws. Because they're happening so fast and sometimes, for example, the Minnesota PFAS prohibition passed last year. In about four months time start to finish and it was part of the environmental funding bill, right? So it's not even always obvious that somebody's working on one. There are some NGOs that do a really good job tracking these regulations. I would say safer states dot org is one that I often refer people to that keeps a pretty good list of the state regulations that are going on, of course, the federal levels following like the EPA or on the European Union side, the European Chemicals Agency, they have excellent, you know, newsletters and updates on the legislation they're working on. It just takes time, right? But again, the alternative isn't just missing a regulation, but missing a potential supply chain impact that could result in a line down. So it's something that companies just have to invest in somebody monitoring those requirements. And those are just a few free resources that you could go to. There are paid resources out there for regulation monitoring as well. But those are just a few of the free ones that I recommend.

Tom Raftery: 31:56

Great. Great. We are coming towards the end of the podcast now, Cally. Is there any question I didn't ask that you wish I had or any aspect of this we haven't mentioned that you think it's important for people to be aware of?

Cally Edgren: 32:09

I do think at the end of the day, there are, you know, three grand challenges around PFAS. The first one, of course, is what are the replacements, right? And this is the opportunity for innovation. But the second one is how do you test for them? Because, as mentioned, there's only a handful of tests. There are a lot of things in development. A lot of the standards organizations are looking for testing. But right now, it's pretty limited. To the point that even the EPA says, ask your suppliers, right? The third is going to be, how do we get rid of them? So I have a water filter that filters out PFAS. Now I have a water filter full of PFAS, right? So I think those are three tremendous opportunities for society to keep working on this issue, and we can't really expect to fully remove PFAS from our lives until those three things have been answered. But there's a lot of great people working on those. So, you know, I'm optimistic about the future. I'll just live with my new dental floss. No longer make microwave popcorn, you know, that's okay.

Tom Raftery: 33:13

And a growing stack of used water filters that are full of PFAS.

Cally Edgren: 33:16

right, exactly. Right. I'll just, I'll just put them in a box until someone comes up with a solution for that.

Tom Raftery: 33:22

Great. Callie, that's been fascinating. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today. If people would like to know more about yourself or any of the things we discussed on the podcast, where would you have me direct them?

Cally Edgren: 33:33

I would ask them to check out our website Assent. com A S S E N T. We have a lot of great blog posts and information and manufacturer's guides on PFAS and a lot of other compliance topics as well. And they certainly can reach out to me through Assent. com as well.

Tom Raftery: 33:51

Tremendous. That's been fascinating Cally, thanks a million for coming on the podcast today.

Cally Edgren: 33:56

Thank you so much for having me.

Tom Raftery: 33:58

Okay. Thank you all for tuning into this episode of the Sustainable Supply Chain Podcast with me, Tom Raftery. Each week, thousands of supply chain professionals listen to this show. If you or your organization want to connect with this dedicated audience, consider becoming a sponsor. You can opt for exclusive episode branding where you choose the guests or a personalized 30 second ad roll. It's a unique opportunity to reach industry experts and influencers. For more details, hit me up on Twitter or LinkedIn, or drop me an email to tomraftery at outlook. com. Together, let's shape the future of sustainable supply chains. Thanks. Catch you all next time.