NEW REPORTAdvancing Health and Equity Through Better Building Products
PollutionPlastic pollution at each life stage
Report
This fact sheet provides an overview over plastic pollution at each life stage: from resource extraction all the way to removal and remediation.
PollutionHabitable’s Chief Research Officer on Why Forever Chemicals Have No Place in Paint
People
Teresa is Habitable’s Chief Research Officer, leading our research strategies.
Almost every day, news headlines warn us of the dangers of ‘forever chemicals’, known as PFAS, used in the manufacturing of consumer and industrial products. They’re being found in our water, air, fish, and soil across the U.S. and around the globe, and our body tissues, showing up in almost every person in the US. A report by Habitable (formerly Healthy Building Network) examines the presence of PFAS in residential and commercial paint products—and the urgent need to stop their use.
We recently spoke with Teresa McGrath, chief research officer, and the report’s lead author, to discuss the team’s research findings. She shares what industry professionals can do to avoid human exposure, and discusses why—and how—manufacturers can eliminate them from paint formulas altogether.
HABITABLE:
Before we jump into the details of this groundbreaking report, can you share a little bit about yourself and your expertise as it relates to chemical sciences and paint products?
TERESA MCGRATH:
My background is in chemistry and toxicology. My entire career I have focused on green chemistry: the idea of using chemistry to help meet sustainability goals. Before joining Habitable, I led the chemical management program for Sherwin-Williams, one of the largest paints and coatings companies in the world. In that role, I focused on hazard reduction and transparency, and helped business units in meeting sustainability goals. As chief research officer at Habitable, I lead a team of researchers on studies that seek to better understand hazardous chemicals that may be present in or used to make building materials, as well as putting forward recommendations and best practices to reduce or eliminate their impacts.
H:
Habitable’s most recent report delves into the presence of PFAS chemicals in paints. Officially named perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances–PFAS–are commonly called ‘forever chemicals’. Can you tell us what forever chemicals are and why they’re so harmful?
TM:
PFAS refers to a class of chemicals with over 10,000 different structures. All PFAS are very persistent chemicals. The fluorine-carbon bond of these synthetic chemicals is very difficult to break and this means that they don’t break down on their own once they get into our bodies or into the environment. Given this persistence, they are often referred to in the media as ‘forever chemicals’. These chemicals can also be bioaccumulative, meaning they build up in our bodies, and can be toxic. We don’t yet know all of the potential harm because most of these chemicals have not been tested, however a host of negative health effects have been associated with PFAS including cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, developmental delays in children, and disrupting the natural hormones in our bodies.
H:
Can you give us an idea of the scale of this problem and why is it so important that we phase PFAS chemicals out of paint products?
TM: Architectural paints coat the inside and outside our homes, schools, and workplaces, making PFAS in paints a potential exposure concern for everyone from those who manufacture and apply the paints to those who occupy painted spaces. They’re a health and environmental concern throughout their lifecycle, from cradle to grave. And while we already know some PFAS are linked to increased health risks, we may just be scratching the surface, as some experts have suggested, we may be underestimating the dangers of these widespread chemicals.
H:
As part of this study, Habitable tested numerous different paint products and brands for the presence of toxic forever chemicals. What were the team’s findings?
TM:
We tested 94 paints for total fluorine (TF), and a subset for extractable organic fluorine (EOF), indicators of PFAS.
We selected paint samples across most brands, price tiers, gloss, base, and colorants. Samples represented eight major paints and coatings manufacturers that together have over 65% of the paints and coatings market share in North America. We found that about 50% of the paints tested positive for these indicators of forever chemicals, the detailed list is included in our report. All tested brands had at least one product that tested positive for fluorine, and at least one product that tested negative for fluorine. And while the overall percentage of PFAS present in these products is generally small (less than 1%), there is no amount of PFAS in paint that can be considered acceptable because of their health implications.
We did reach out to paint manufacturers, but none could provide us with more comprehensive information on the definitive purpose and use of these chemicals in their products. The likely assumption is they’re using these forever chemicals as a surfactant, meaning they are acting as a stabilizer helping the paints to spread and coat more evenly.
H:
According to the report results, there are numerous paint products on the market today that don’t use these harmful additives. Are these chemicals even necessary and is removing PFAS chemicals from paint a relatively easy thing to do?
TM:
While surfactants are critical to a paint formulation, there are other PFAS-free surfactants that are used for the same purpose that are safer, objectively, from an environmental and human health perspective. Half of the paints we tested didn’t show evidence of PFAS, so we know that it’s possible to formulate paint products without it.
H:
What actions should the paint industry and their suppliers take in light of these findings?
TM:
Paint manufacturers need to phase-out all use of intentionally-added PFAS. When removing forever chemicals from formulations, manufacturers should make sure that PFAS are not replaced with other hazardous chemicals such as alkylphenol ethoxylates (APEs).
To avoid regrettable substitutions and facilitate informed material selection, all alternatives must have full chemical hazard assessments. If a paint company doesn’t know the full hazard profile of a chemical or surfactant, they should consult a toxicologist to evaluate that chemical. The ChemFORWARD platform offers tools and data to help companies find safer alternatives.
In addition, manufacturers should publicly disclose all ingredients in their paints, including PFAS use at any concentration. It should be standard practice for all paint manufacturers to tell the public what they’re putting in their products, along with the toxicity profile of every ingredient.
At a high level, industry players can support bans on PFAS and regulations that require more ingredient transparency in the paint sector..
H:
And lastly, how can you source PFAS-free paint products if you’re a consumer, building professional or specifier?
TM:
All this information might feel a little overwhelming, but we have developed two tools to make it much easier. And the good news is, all of the brands we tested had at least one option that tested negative for fluorine. Specifiers can refer to Habitable’s InformedTM paint guidance resource to select safer paints, as well as our downloadable form that can be used to ask manufacturers for a paint that meets the transparency and material health attributes specified by Habitable. By following these tips you can source paint that is free of forever chemicals, and also meets other environmental best practices such as low VOC content and emissions.
Buyers can also advocate for paint companies to do better. Ask paint manufacturers to provide public disclosure of all intentionally added ingredients, using the Health Product Declaration (HPD) or Declare label.
PollutionEmbodied Injustices: Building Material Pollution Harms BIPOC, Low-Income Communities
News
Insulation selection has generally focused on prioritizing a product’s ability to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from building operation, though increasingly considerations include GHG emissions from a material’s life cycle, from manufacture through disposal (known as embodied carbon).
However, this singular focus on GHGs fails to account for other harmful emissions associated with the life cycle of these materials, including toxic pollution that disproportionately burdens Black, Indigenous, people of color (BIPOC), and/or low-income communities. As billions of pounds of new insulation is being installed in buildings each year, failure to address these toxic impacts will mean that building decarbonization efforts will further entrench environmental injustice.
Healthy Building Network (HBN) joined NRDC and Energy Efficiency for All in an analysis of the life cycle chemical and environmental justice impacts of two popular building insulation materials—fiberglass and spray polyurethane foam (SPF).
The Findings
The analysis found that both SPF and fiberglass release pollution into BIPOC communities over their life cycles, but SPF carries a much heavier pollution burden. The combined population surrounding the facilities that manufacture the key ingredient of SPF has almost double the percentage of Latino people compared to the U.S. overall. These facilities reported releasing an average of about 560,000 pounds of related hazardous chemicals every year and have a history of noncompliance with EPA regulations. Our previous research also found that spray foam has significant hazardous chemical concerns during installation and use in buildings.
Regarding embodied carbon, while the specifics vary, studies (such as here, here, and here) consistently show that closed cell SPF has significantly higher embodied carbon per R-value than fiberglass insulation. Further, SPF is made from almost entirely fossil fuel-derived inputs, with no recovery, reuse, or recycling of the material—necessitating continued extraction and refining of fossil fuels to produce this insulation product. Overall, comparing material health, environmental justice, and embodied carbon impacts between SPF and fiberglass, fiberglass is preferable on all accounts.
However, fiberglass manufacturing still releases hazardous pollution into communities who are disproportionately BIPOC and/or low income, and many fiberglass facilities have exhibited regular noncompliance with EPA regulations. Fiberglass manufacturers can reduce and eliminate such pollution by using less hazardous chemistries. For example, all four U.S. manufacturers reported reduced releases of formaldehyde by changing to safer binder formulations for many of their products between 2002 and 2015.
Why It Matters
As laid out in the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform:
“To achieve our [climate] goals, we will need to overcome past failures that have led us to the crisis conditions we face today. Past failures include the perpetuation of systemic inequalities that have left communities of color, tribal communities, and low-income communities exposed to the highest levels of toxic pollution and the most burdened and affected by climate change. The defining environmental crisis of our time now demands an urgency to act. Yet this urgency must not displace or abandon the fundamental principles of democracy and justice…Unless justice and equity are central components of our climate agenda, the inequality of the carbon-based economy will be replicated in the new economy.”
To truly be part of a just and equitable transition to a clean economy, climate solutions like building insulation must advance the well-being of BIPOC and low-income communities. We recommend that embodied chemical and environmental justice impacts drive material decision-making on par with consideration of GHG emissions.
Your Action Today = Healthier, More Just Future
In general, there are significant opportunities to improve the life cycle of building insulation materials through avoiding hazardous chemicals, implementing circularity, and taking other actions stemming from the principles of green chemistry and environmental justice.
Manufacturers and policymakers should advance transparency about what is in a product, how and where it is made, and the hazardous releases that occur throughout its life cycle. In the meantime, those who choose building materials can start by avoiding hazardous chemicals in a product’s content to help protect not only building occupants and installers, but also others impacted by those hazardous chemicals throughout the supply chain. Our InformedTM product guidance can help you choose safer materials.
All stakeholders–including manufacturers, policymakers, and those who choose building materials–should support the leadership of frontline communities and make changes to their own practice so that all families have healthy places to live, learn, work, and play.
Pollution‘Forever Chemicals’: the hidden threat from the toxic PFAS on your shelf
News
PFAS are used in paints, food packaging and even cosmetics. We know they are in our water, air, soil and bodies – but less about how they will affect us.
PollutionThe Story of Plastic
Report
This video describes why plastic ends up in the environment and the solutions needed to disrupt the unsustainable use of plastic by holding manufacturers accountable for the products they make.
PollutionThe Polyvinylchloride Debate: Why PVC remains a problematic material
Report
Health Care Without Harm Europe advocates for the complete elimination of PVC due to its environmental impact, urging policymakers to develop a strategy for its phase-out in Europe.
PollutionAddressing the Plastics Crisis: Why Vinyl Has to Go
Resource
If we are to have any chance of addressing the global plastics crisis, Polyvinyl Chloride plastic (PVC) also known as vinyl, has got to go.
It cannot be produced sustainably or equitably. It cannot be “optimized.” It cannot be recycled. It will never find a place in a circular economy, and it makes it harder to achieve circularity with other materials, including other plastics.
There are three reasons for this: technical, economic, and behavioral. The inherent qualities of PVC and its cousin, CPVC, make it among the most technologically challenging plastics to recycle. Like most plastics, PVC is made with fossil fuel feedstocks. Unlike other plastics, PVC/vinyl also contains substantial amounts of chlorine, upwards of 40%. This is the C in PVC, and this chlorine content adds an additional layer of negative impacts to the earth and its people, social inequity, and an impediment to recycling that cannot be overcome. Recyclers consider it a contaminant to other plastic feedstock streams.1 It mucks up the machines and the already perilous economics of plastics recycling.
There is an emerging global consensus on this point, albeit euphemistically stated. The Ellen MacArthur New Plastics Economy Project consists of representatives from the world’s largest plastic makers and users, along with governments, academics, and NGOs. In 2017 it reached the conclusion that PVC was an “uncommon” plastic that was unlikely to be recycled and should be avoided in favor of other more recyclable packaging materials.2 “Uncommon” in the diplomatic parlance of international multistakeholder initiatives means unrecyclable. The project also took note of the many toxic emissions associated with PVC production.
That’s not surprising since after 30 years of hollow promises and pilot projects doomed to fail, virtually no post-consumer PVC is recycled.3 Conversely, leading brands with forward-looking materials policies such such as Nike, Apple, and Google have prioritized PVC phase outs.4
But in the building industry, PVC rages on. Virgin vinyl LVT flooring is the fastest growing product in the flooring sector. So much so that in 2017 sustainability leader Interface introduced a new product line of virgin vinyl LVT, despite forecasting just one year before that by 2020 the company would “source 95 percent of its materials from recycled or biobased resources.”5
The current flooring market demands the impossible – aesthetic qualities and durability at a price unmatchable by non-vinyl floor coverings. A price that is unmatchable because at every stage of vinyl production, the societal costs of its poisonous environmental health consequences are externalized, subsidized, paid for by the people who live in communities that have become virtual poster children for environmental injustice and oppression. Places like Mossville, LA; Freeport, TX; and the Xinjiang Province in China, home to the oppressed Uighur population. As we detail in our exhaustive Chlorine and Building Materials report, the unique chlorine component of PVC plastic contributes to a range of toxic pollution problems starting with the fact that chlorine production relies upon either mercury-, asbestos-, or PFAS-based processes. This is in addition to the onerous environmental health burdens of petrochemical processing that burden all plastics.
It is true that all plastics contribute to environmental injustices. Virtually all plastics are made from fossil fuel feedstocks, and all plastics share abysmally low recovery and cycling rates. Still, independent experts agree that some plastics are worse than others, and PVC is among the worst.6 Additionally, most uses of PVC have readily available alternatives or solutions that are within reach. Certainly there are non-PVC alternatives for flooring. What can’t be beat is the cost – that is, the low purchase price at the point of sale, subsidized by the sacrifices we ignore in the communities where the plastics are manufactured and the waste is dealt with. And BIPOC communities bear the disproportionate burden of it all. Acknowledging and addressing this tradeoff is at the root of the behavioral change that stands between us and a just and healthy circular economy.
In his influential book How To Be An Antiracist, Dr. Ibram X. Kendi argues that if we recognize we live in a society with many racial inequities – and acknowledge that since no racial group is inferior or superior to another, the cause of these inequities are policies and practices – then to be anti-racist is to challenge those policies and practices where we can and create new ones that create equity and justice for all.
Imagine if as part of our commitment to equity in our sustainability efforts, we recognized, acknowledged, and did what we could to address the racial inequities associated with PVC production, and committed right now to stop using PVC unless it was absolutely essential. The plastics industry would howl and point out inconsistencies, question priorities, highlight unintended consequences. We would all feel a tinge of whataboutism – what about carbon, or this other injustice, or that shortcoming of the alternatives. But it is clear that widespread incrementalism is failing us on so many fronts, none more than the environmental injustices that are hardwired into our supply chains.
In fact, there are many examples of companies and building projects that have prioritized PVC-free alternatives based upon principles of equity and justice. We need more leaders in the field to join those who are abandoning vinyl in product types that have superior options. Our CEO Gina Ciganik used a non-PVC flooring in 2015 at The Rose, her last development project prior to joining HBN.
“After learning about toxic chemical additives to PVC, its inability to be recycled, and the human health and environmental damage it imparts on fenceline communities, I was no longer willing to be a participant in that planetary damage when there are alternatives. The architectural team for the project at MSR Design selected the Armstrong Striations product instead.”
Gina Ciganik
First Community Housing, another affordable housing leader, has been using linoleum for many years for similar reasons. In their Leigh Avenue Apartments project. Forbo’s Marmoleum Click tiles were the flooring of choice.
Vinyl is not an essential material for any of the largest surface areas of our building projects – flooring, wall coverings, or roofing. It may often be the conventional choice in conventional buildings, but it should not be the conventional choice in buildings that promise to be green, healthy, and equitable. LVT may be the fastest growing flooring product in the world, but it is a throwback to the inequitable, unsustainable world we say is unacceptable, not the world we are trying to create.
Habitable can help you start by using our Informed™ product guidance, which helps identify worst and best in class products that are healthier for people and the planet. So why not start here and now, with a principled stand of refusing to profit from unjust, frequently racist, externalized costs?
SOURCES
- https://plasticsrecycling.org/pvc-design-guidance
- See pp. 27-29: www.newplasticseconomy.org/assets/doc/New-Plastics-Economy_Catalysing-Action_13-1-17.pdf
- See e.g. Figure 1: https://css.umich.edu/publication/plastics-us-toward-material-flow-characterization-production-markets-and-end-life
- See e.g.: www.apple.com/environment/answers (Apple); www.greenpeace.org/usa/reports/greener-electronics-2017 (Google); www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1998-aug-26-fi-16540-story.html (Nike)
- www.greenbiz.com/article/inside-interfaces-bold-new-mission-achieve-climate-take-back: “Going Beyond Zero” The march towards Mission Zero continued unabated, however, with consistent year-over-year improvement in most metrics. Today, the company forecasts that by 2020 it will halve its energy use, power 87 percent of its operations with renewable energy, cut water intake by 90 percent, reduce greenhouse gas emissions 95 percent (and its overall carbon footprint by 80 percent), send nothing to landfills, and source 95 percent of its materials from recycled or biobased resources.
- www.cleanproduction.org/resources/entry/plastics-scorecard-press-release
PollutionDo you know what’s in your recycled material?
Resource
Have you ever seen a building product advertise that it contains recycled content and wondered what that material actually was and where it came from? We certainly have. Many building products advertise recycled content, but most often the identity and chemical makeup of the recycled material are not shared.
Using products that contain recycled content can be a great way to reduce environmental impacts and support a circular economy by keeping still-useful materials out of landfills and avoiding the impacts of manufacturing virgin materials. Unfortunately, some recycled materials contain toxic chemicals that come along for the ride when incorporated into new products. For example, 2015 testing of a range of vinyl floors found high levels of toxic lead and cadmium from recycled content in the inner layers of the floors.1
Defining recycled content
Recycled content is broadly broken down into pre-consumer and post-consumer materials. As defined by the U.S. Green Building Council2 :
- Post-consumer material is “waste material generated by households or by commercial, industrial, and institutional facilities in their role as end-users of the product, which can no longer be used for its intended purpose.” Some examples of post-consumer recycled material include glass bottles or vehicle tires.
- Pre-consumer material is “material diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process.” This definition excludes reuse of scrap materials back into the same process. Some examples of pre-consumer recycled material include treated waste from coal fired power plants (such as fly ash used in carpets or FGD gypsum used in drywall) or waste wood fiber from a sawmill used in composite wood like medium density fiberboard (MDF).
Ensuring safer recycled materials
While some recycled feedstocks, such as sawdust and glass containers, can be safely recycled into new products, others contain legacy contaminants that can lead to toxic exposures when used in new products. To address the potential for toxic re-exposures from recycled materials, HBN worked with green building standards such as LEED and Enterprise Green Communities to include credits that consider not just if a product contains recycled content, but also what that content is and if it has been screened for potential hazards.
Enterprise Green Communities Criterion 6.2, Recycled Content and Ingredient Transparency, acknowledges that the need for content transparency applies to recycled content as well as virgin materials. It calls for using products that contain post-consumer recycled content where the origin of the recycled content is publicly disclosed along with information on how the recycled content is screened for or otherwise avoids heavy metals.
Mind the data gap
Product manufacturers may not always have detailed content information available for the recycled materials they use. Supply chain tracking and internal screening requirements can help manufacturers ensure that the recycled materials they incorporate into new products don’t bring along hazardous contaminants.
Building a Sustainable Future
Removing toxic chemicals from new products makes a commercial afterlife possible, supports a safe and circular economy, and minimizes negative human health impacts. Using materials that are recoverable at the end of their life and building infrastructure to reuse or recycle them will lessen future impacts. Fully and transparently documenting product contents now also supports future recycling by identifying materials that may later be determined to be toxic.
As a building material specifier, the next time you consider a product with recycled content, make sure to ask the manufacturer for full transparency of product content, including where that recycled content came from.
Together we can reduce human exposure and work towards a safe and circular economy.
SOURCES
- Vallette, Jim. “Post-Consumer Polyvinyl Chloride in Building Products.” Healthy Building Network, 2015. https://habitablefuture.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/90-post-consumer-polyvinyl-chloride-pvc-report.pdf.
- USGBC. “Building Product Disclosure and Optimization – Material Ingredients.” U.S. Green Building Council. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.usgbc.org/credits/new-construction-core-and-shell-schools-new-construction-retail-new-construction-healthca-24.
PollutionThe SIN List – Don’t let hazardous chemicals ruin your product
Report
Watch ChemSec’s skit about the SIN List, to learn why hazardous chemicals should be removed from products due to the health and environmental risks they present.
PollutionThis Car Seat Meets the Chemical of Her Dreams
Report
ChemSec’s Marketplace connects products like this car seat with safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals, offering a platform for them to find better matches and reduce their environmental impact.