Gaslighting is when someone makes another person doubt their own reality by denying facts, distorting events, or making them question their perceptions, often to gain power and control. It involves systematically feeding false information or twisting truths until the victim becomes confused and dependent on the abuser, eroding their self-trust.

Obviously, this phenomenon is most closely associated with personal relationships — but it can also be used by chemical companies. Their tactic works by overwhelming genuine scientific consensus with carefully crafted confusion, making it harder for the public and policymakers to act. 

A well-proven industry tactic

As part of this tactic, companies can, for example:

• Fund biased research, commissioning studies with favourable outcomes or hiring scientists to produce them.
• Promote dissenting voices, amplifying the views of a few contrarian scientists to create a false sense of scientific debate.
• Establish seemingly independent organisations to push industry-friendly narratives.
• Misrepresent data and use misleading language by twisting facts, using hyperbolic claims, and focusing on minor uncertainties to distract from major risks.

Chemical companies are by no means the only ones doing this. These tactics have been employed for a long time — by many of the world’s largest industries. Take the infamous tobacco industry as an example, which went to great lengths to deny that smoking had anything to do with cancer. Or the oil industry, creating polarisation and confusion about global warming.

So, now that we’ve set the scene, let’s zoom in on the PFAS debate. Here are four ways chemical companies use gaslighting tactics when it comes to “forever chemicals”:

1. Advocating to narrow the definition of PFAS

Last year, a group of 20 internationally renowned scientists issued a strong warning against attempts to narrow the definition of PFAS in what they describe as a “politically and/or economically, rather than scientifically, motivated” effort to weaken regulation.

And from an industry perspective, it makes sense. With an EU PFAS restriction in the making, the chemical industry wants to make sure that the definition of what really constitutes a PFAS stays as narrow as possible. The fewer chemicals included in the PFAS definition, the more persistent chemicals the industry can produce and use. A broad definition means fewer loopholes and less wiggle room — and the industry does not want that.

Moreover, it is a way to create doubt about whether they are all persistent and to push the idea that not all PFAS are the same and should therefore be treated as separate groups.

2. Working to exempt fluoropolymers from PFAS restrictions

Aaahh fluoropolymers, the love child of PFAS and plastics — and the darling of the chemical industry, which is fighting tooth and nail to save these “Teflon chemicals” from being banned.

When it comes to fluoropolymers, the arguments from the chemical industry play like a broken record that is impossible to turn off. The argument is that the PFAS are locked inside the material and do not leach out. But that’s just not true. They do break down and leach out into the environment, slowly, over decades. More importantly, all PFAS uses ultimately become emissions. Fluoropolymers are no exception.

The most repetitive argument (delusion), however, is that — according to the chemical industry — the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) considers fluoropolymers to be of “low concern”. The only problem is that the OECD never said so. In fact, there were never any criteria for polymers of low concern to start with. It went so far that the OECD had to publish a clarification to end speculations once and for all. 

Fluoropolymers are a prime example of industry effectively creating scientific doubt around PFAS. Well done!

3. Labelling products as “PFOA free”

The devil is in the details, as the saying goes. “PFOA free” sounds great but has a loophole. It’s not saying it’s 100% PFAS free.

PFOA is just one single compound out of tens of thousands of chemicals in the PFAS family. Coincidentally, it’s also one of the very few PFAS substances that are actually banned from use in the EU.

So, don’t be fooled into thinking that it cannot contain other PFAS chemicals just because it says that it’s free from PFOA — or any other specific PFAS compound, for that matter.

4. Claiming that PFAS are necessary in the “green transition”

“It’s really amazing to me that we would think of walking away from a group of chemistries . . . that enables the green economy”, Mark Newman, former CEO of top PFAS producer Chemours, told the Financial Times a while back.

This right here, dear friends, is the Rolls-Royce of PFAS gaslighting tactics. It doesn’t even try to downplay hazards or use regulatory loopholes. Instead, it turns the use of PFAS into something environmentally friendly and completely necessary in order to save our planet from the climate crisis.

The only problem is that it’s complete nonsense. Industry says there are no PFAS-free alternatives for many critical applications — but there are. Also, it doesn’t seem very sustainable to pollute our planet with toxic forever chemicals as we’re decarbonising our economies.