Why Was AFFF Banned in the USA, and How Does it Safeguard Health and the Environment? 

When firefighters rush in to save lives, the last thing they expect is for their equipment to put lives at risk later on. Yet a hidden health threat was silently spreading, with aqueous film-forming foam taking the blame.

Used for decades to efficiently smother burning jet fuel, this “miracle foam” contained a deadly secret – PFAS chemicals that poisoned water and soils, building up in human blood for years to come.

As damaging evidence mounted, the US took a bold stand, banning AFFF use nationwide. But how did we reach this point, and what will it mean for firefighting innovations going forward? It’s a story that offers lessons for health, the environment, and the tools we depend on in times of crisis. Before diving in, if you are a victim of AFFF, get the help of an AFFF lawsuit attorney.

The Toxic Impacts of AFFF 

Perfluorinated compounds (PFCs) pose risks to human health and the environment. PFCs, commonly referred to as “forever chemicals” due to their resistance to degradation, consist of over 12,000 man-made compounds. When firefighters rush in to save lives, the last thing they expect is for their equipment to put lives at risk later on. Yet a hidden health threat was silently spreading, with aqueous film-forming foam taking the blame.  

Used for decades to efficiently smother burning jet fuel, this “miracle foam” contained a deadly secret – PFAS chemicals that poisoned water and soils, building up in human blood for years to come.  

As damaging evidence mounted, the US took a bold stand, banning AFFF use nationwide. But how did we reach this point, and what will it 

Two specific PFC variants, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), formed the basis of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). 

AFFF, a flame-retardant solution, was extensively used by the military at installations across Texas starting in the 1970s, primarily for firefighter training and liquid fuel fire suppression. 

While PFC properties supported applications in products like non-stick cookware and stain-resistant materials, research has revealed their toxicity.  

Studies have linked prolonged human exposure to various health harms, such as some cancers, decreased vaccine effectiveness, low birth weight, thyroid dysfunction, and high cholesterol.  

However, the environmental persistence that made PFCs effective surfactants also allowed their accumulation over long periods. Since manufacturers withheld information about risks, exposure went largely unaddressed. 

PFC contamination has been documented at over 700 U.S. military sites, with estimates as high as 3,500 locations nationwide. It was only later that the hazardous nature of AFFF ingredients and the full extent of PFC pollution were recognized. 

The High Toxicity of AFFF Led to Legal Actions 

According to TorHoerman Law, individuals exposed to firefighting foams containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) through occupational or environmental means face serious long-term health risks. Aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), used for decades to extinguish liquid fuel fires, incorporate PFAS. 

Various companies supplied AFFF to fire departments, military sites, airports, and other entities now named in lawsuits. Producer defendants include 3M, DuPont/Chemours, Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard Inc., ChemDesign Inc., and over a dozen others.  

Civilian and military firefighters face the highest exposure risks, especially without adequate personal protective equipment, as recommended. 

Workers in industries using AFFF also risk harm, such as at chemical plants, airports, petroleum facilities, and others fighting Class B fires. Groundwater contamination from PFAS has affected over 16 million Americans in 33 states and Puerto Rico, with pollution detected in 38 states overall. 

Firefighters, military personnel, and surrounding communities who use contaminated water sources worry about long-term health damage from years of PFAS exposure. Some have already developed illnesses tied to occupational or environmental contact. It’s no surprise then that many are now asking, “can I still join the PFAS lawsuit settlement” — a question that reflects growing awareness and a desire for justice.

Victims are now pursuing legal recourse through lawsuits such as the AFFF foam lawsuit to address PFAS-related injuries and seek accountability for resulting harms. The high toxicity of these unregulated chemicals has understandably led impacted groups to pursue justice through the court system. 

Growing State Actions to Regulate and Restrict PFAS Usage 

In the absence of adequate federal regulation, states are enacting their own legislative and policy solutions to phase out PFAS usage and prevent further contamination.  

Maine and Washington laws authorize agencies to ban specific PFAS in a wide range of products. Maine also requires PFAS disclosure by manufacturers. Eleven states have prohibited PFAS in food packaging, while Colorado restricts their use in oil/gas and personal care products as well. 

Regarding firefighting foam, bans have been passed in eleven states that contain PFAS. Washington will evaluate safer alternatives for other products like apparel, cleaners, coatings, and more under 2022 laws, aiming for restrictions by 2025.  

For textiles, six states restrict PFAS in carpets and rugs as well as aftermarket treatments, with California and Washington reviewing home textiles. Colorado additionally regulates indoor/outdoor furniture. 

As scientific understanding of PFAS dangers grows, states are instituting controls where federal standards lag. By restricting non-essential PFAS sources, they aim to curtail contamination risks for residents.  

These targeted regulations and bans establish precedents that could drive suppliers to reformulate products without PFAS nationwide, protecting communities where pollution remains a persistent public health concern without urgent remedial action. 

FAQs 

1. Has the AFFF lawsuit been resolved? 

A: The City of Stuart case involved allegations of AFFF contamination in the municipal water system of Stuart, Florida. However, this pivotal trial never took place because, in June 2023, the defendants opted to settle all water contamination cases (including the City of Stuart case) through a global settlement agreement. 

2. Is AFFF still utilized by the Department of Defense (DoD)? 

A: Following October 1, 2024, fluorinated AFFF may only be used at military installations if the Secretary of Defense grants a waiver from the ban. AFFF is employed by the DoD to swiftly extinguish fuel fires and mitigate the risk of significant loss of life and property. Nonetheless, AFFF has been found to contain PFAS. 

3. What sets apart 3% and 6% AFFF? 

A: The AR-AFFF 3%-6% concentrate is formulated for use at a 3% application rate on standard hydrocarbon fuel fires and a 6% rate on polar solvent/alcohol fuel fires. 

As more research uncovers the toxic reality of compounds like PFOA and PFOS, the use of AFFF looks set to disappear for good. However, this complex story is far from over. Firefighters and communities impacted by contamination still seek justice.

Meanwhile, innovations in new firefighting solutions will aim to tackle the dual challenges of safety and public health with renewed care.  

How we address both the legacy of chemical exposures and design healthier alternatives going forward will shape risk management for generations to come. The lessons from the banning of AFFF point us toward a future where vigilance, precaution, and public well-being guide every step. 

This is a collaborative post.