Dupont Chemical Company: Undisclosed Dangers of Teflon
Corporations do not care about us.
I highly recommend watching the documentary, “The Devil We Know” about these tragic events.
Corporate malfeasance has become a standard part of our daily news. Almost at a regular interval, a company is charged with alleged unethical or illegal actions they took for business or personal benefit. The beginning of the 21st century has many examples to draw from, with corporations such as the energy giant Enron who collapsed due to financial accounting deceit. Capital fund managers have served lengthy prison sentences for creating fake audits and defrauding investors of their savings. During the 2008 Recession, multiple banking practices involving the sub-prime mortgage market were found to be a lesson in how far corporate greed can go (Lerner, 2015). Most of these scandals were fleeting in the time they lasted, but caused financial hardship and even ruin for those affected. More insidious is corporate wrongdoing that threatens public health and safety. Blatant disregard of established protocols and regulations are a violation of the trust society bestows for these offenders. Corporations have a moral and legal duty to ensure their products are safe to use, along with the process that creates them.
Dupont History
French-American Eleuthere Irenee du Pont established the DuPont Company in 1802 in Wilmington, Delaware (Mattera, 2016). While now known as a chemical and materials manufacturer, the company originally started as a gunpowder and explosive maker. By the middle of the 19th century, it became one of the largest gunpowder suppliers in the United States. The company’s status and reputation earned it the moniker “Merchant of Death” (Mattera, 2016). This continued until after World War I when the company decided to move from making weapons to creating new chemicals and compounds for less volatile uses. With the new slogan, “Better Living through Chemistry,” the company rebranded itself (Mattera, 2016). This led to the creation of innovative materials like Nylon, Lycra and Kevlar, along with Freon for refrigeration. In 1945, the company patented a product that gave it recognition and financial success worldwide: Teflon (Mattera, 2016).
Teflon
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), commonly known as Teflon, is a synthetic fluoropolymer that repels liquids and has a high heat resistance, as well as low friction properties. While most often known as a coating for cookware to avoid food sticking, its applications go beyond the kitchen for uses in the aeronautical and medical industry in making parts and instruments. Clothing designers like Gore-Tex utilize it for making outerwear more water-resistant. While Teflon itself has not proven to be harmful, the chemicals used in the process of making it have carcinogenic properties and remain toxic after disposal (Blake, 2015).
Something isn’t right
In the 1990’s in Parkersburg, West Virginia, a local cattle farmer named Wilbur Tennant began to take notice when his cows quickly began dying from mysterious ailments. The symptoms before their deaths ranged from uncontrollable bleeding from the nose and mouth, to blindness and unexplained tumors (Lerner, 2015). The family had farmed and raised cattle on their property for over one hundred years with the traditional obstacles of severe weather, bad crops and fluctuating cattle and milk prices. This was something entirely new. Affected cows that otherwise would gently come up to be milked, had become agitated and were prone to charge anyone that came near them while in this state. Mr. Tennant’s family experienced breathing issues requiring trips to the hospital along with unexplained chemical burns. The Tennant farm location was adjacent to one of DuPont’s massive chemical factories that manufactured Teflon. The factory was also the town’s largest employer and had considerable influence amongst the local politicians and businesses (Lerner, 2015).
In the early 1980’s, DuPont company representatives approached the Tennant farm with an offer to buy over sixty acres for a new landfill needed for the factory, with assurances that it would not be used for toxic disposal. DuPont stated its use would only be for scrap metal and ash. Mr. Tennant agreed to sell the company the property and DuPont opened Dry Creek Landfill, naming it after the long creek that traveled through the site (Rich, 2016, January 6). The company had no intention to abide by what they claimed was going to be a simple landfill. Almost immediately, the property next to the farm became a dumping ground for the chemicals used in the process of making Teflon. One chemical used to make Teflon is known as Perfluorooctanoic (PFOA) acid, or C8. This soapy substance gives Teflon the non-stick properties during the refinement process (Rich, 2016, January 6).
The Tennant family was not aware of C8 or that the company was using the landfill to dump toxic waste, but suspicions against DuPont were growing for the cause of all the cattle deaths and personal health issues. The creek running through their property had begun to exhibit strange green, frothy bubbles and emit an unpleasant odor. Wilbur Tennant attempted to get local veterinarians to examine and autopsy the dead cattle but they refused to get involved, in part to fears of reprisal from the largest employer of the town being DuPont. Tennant finally did it himself and discovered green blotches and textures within the organs of the deceased (Rich, 2016). The local community around the plant experienced a high cluster of cancerous tumors related to the kidneys and thyroid gland, as well as birth defects in the children of women who worked in the chemical plant during pregnancy (Lerner, 2015).
Wilbur Tennant eventually contacted Rob Bilott, a corporate environmental lawyer based out of Cincinnati. The cattle rancher brought along homemade video showing the dead animals and the creek from the landfill where his cattle drank (Rich, 2016). Based on this evidence, he filed a federal lawsuit in the summer of 1999 against DuPont. DuPont initially agreed to commission a health study by veterinarians to determine why the cattle were dying. This study concluded that the fault lied with Mr. Tennant not taking adequate care of his stock, due to poor husbandry. A lack of nutrition and absence of insect control were to blame, according to the study (Rich, 2016). For a family who had a century of experience raising cattle, this conclusion was insulting and disrespectful.
As the trial date approached, Mr. Bilott continued to search all corporate documents that related to the landfill. He happened upon a letter describing a chemical called PFOA that was being disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill. When he requested all pertinent documents concerning PFOA, the company refused. It required a court order in September 2000 to access what information and research the company had for the chemical also called C8. Over 100,000 papers dating back 50 years eventually arrived at the lawyer’s office (Rich, 2016).
Company Management’s Role
According to the internal documents, DuPont began using PFOA to make Teflon in 1951, which they purchased from the company 3M. The recommendation for disposal of PFOA by 3M was to send it to a chemical waste facility, and for it never to be discharged into surface water or sewers. As early as 1961, company research on C8 interactions with lab rats caused the livers to enlarge and tumors to appear on organs. Internal research done secretly by the company over the ensuing decades continued to show the dangers of C8. DuPont recorded abnormally high concentrations of C8 in factory employees that manufactured Teflon, and further lab testing revealed birth defects in unborn rats. Workers that came into regular contact with C8 called it the “Teflon Flu” as a way to explain the multiple illnesses that occurred from exposure. DuPont records divulged that the chemical C8 was found in the nation’s blood banks in 1976. By 1990, 7500-tons of PFOA toxic waste were deposited into the Dry Run Creek Landfill, according to factory records (Lerner, 2015).
Company Response
DuPont settled the lawsuit with the Tennant family for an undisclosed amount in 2001. In an unprecedented move, DuPont attempted to get a gag order imposed on the Tennant’s lawyer to prevent him from relaying the internal documentation on C8 to the Environmental Protection Agency (Rich, 2016). A later class-action lawsuit brought against the company for failing to divulge information on the dangers of C8, and the leaks into Dry Run Creek and the Ohio River, ended in 2017. This involved over 3500 plaintiffs who were sickened by exposure to C8 from polluted water supplies. The company agreed to a $670 Million settlement, while admitting no wrongdoing on the company’s part (Board, 2017).
Action by DuPont
DuPont’s financial cost for the damages caused by their negligence in the handling and disposal of a known carcinogenic chemical amounted to a pittance in comparison of the damage caused. With daily sales of 95-million-a-day as of 2014, the settlement of 670-million reflects less than one month of company profits (Board, 2017). This is inadequate for company transgressions that spanned over five decades. Showing a blatant disregard for public safety, the company continues to produce toxic chemicals in countries outside the US away from EPA regulations. With C8 having no biodegradable qualities, this substance has an immortal lifetime on earth. It has been found on every continent within animal and ground samples. The Center for Disease control estimates it is in the bloodstream of 99.7-percent of humans. This is due to past practices of DuPont dumping drum barrels of C8 in the ocean and rivers next to other factories that produced Teflon (Board, 2017). The current settlement and ongoing litigation are not sufficient for the present-day, as well as future disability and hardships others will face from the contamination.
As noted on internal meetings held by the company, potential loss of profit was put ahead of public safety (Rich, 2016). In regards to the Teflon scandal, there were multiple instances of the company receiving advice by in-house scientists and the legal department of the dangers involved with C8 (Blake, 2015).
References
Blake, M. (2015, August 28). Welcome to beautiful Parkersburg West Virginia. Huffington Post. Retrieved from https://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-parkersburg/
Board, G. (2017, February 13). Dupont offers $670M settlement for Teflon chemical contamination of water. Ohio Valley Resource. Retrieved from https://ohiovalleyresource.org/2017/02/13/dupont-offers-670m-settlement-teflon-chemical-contamination-water/
Lerner, S. (2015, August 11). The Teflon toxin: Dupont and the chemistry of deception. The Intercept. Retrieved from https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/
Mattera, P. (2016, August 11). Dupont: Corporate rap sheet. Corporate Research Project. Retrieved from https://www.corp-research.org/dupont
Rich, N. (2016, January 6). The lawyer who became Dupont’s worst nightmare. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/10/magazine/the-lawyer-who-became-duponts-worst-nightmare.html
Wilson, J. (2019, July 31). The devil we know: How Dupont poisoned the world with Teflon. Organic Consumers Association. Retrieved from https://www.organicconsumers.org/blog/devil-we-know-how-dupont-poisoned-world-teflon
This is why the chemical industry has migrated to China. I can hardly imagine the toxic nightmare that must exist around that country's industrial precincts.