A major investigation into the lobbying battle over toxic “forever chemicals” has revealed that powerful firms are routinely representing both the polluters and the polluted, in a practice critics say is undermining public health protections while enriching the consultants.
The report by the non-profit watchdog F-Minus, which analysed records across six US states, paints a picture of an influential lobbying sector operating with minimal constraints, even as communities grapple with widespread PFAS contamination linked to cancer and other serious illnesses.
California: A Blueprint for ‘Win-Win’ Lobbying
The dynamic was laid bare in California last year. Two key PFAS bills landed on Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk: one to ban the chemicals in cookware and consumer products (SB 682), and another to create a private fund for cleaning up polluted water (SB 454). According to the F-Minus analysis, lobbying firms profited from both sides of the debate.
KP Public Affairs made nearly $275,000 lobbying on SB 682. It represented chemical manufacturers opposing the ban, while simultaneously lobbying in favour of it for the Western Municipal Water District. Another firm, Public Policy Advocates, lobbied for the cleanup fund while working against the consumer product ban on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC), a major industry group.
Governor Newsom ultimately vetoed the product ban but signed the cleanup fund into law. The report argues this outcome was a boon for the “double-dipping” firms, allowing them to “claim a win with their industrial, PFAS-using clients, and also claim a win with their clients who supported SB 454,” despite the continued pollution of water systems.
A Web of Conflicts Spanning States and Sectors
The California example is not an isolated case. The F-Minus review identified 26 healthcare systems, 11 public school systems, 15 wildlife groups, and 132 local governments that share lobbying firms with PFAS makers or their trade associations. This activity spans 36 states.
In New Jersey, the Princeton Public Affairs Group lobbied both for and against a bill banning PFAS in some consumer goods, earning $96,000. In Oregon, lobbyist Rocky Dallum of Tonkon Torp worked against a state PFAS ban while also lobbying for the Oregon Bioscience Association on newborn screening for rare diseases—conditions that in-utero PFAS exposure is linked to.
One of the most prominent firms, Holland & Knight, represents the ACC, which aggressively opposes PFAS regulation. The same firm also lobbies for the American Cancer Society and for the city of Philadelphia. The report found Holland & Knight received $520,000 from the ACC and $80,000 from Philadelphia. Pennsylvania law requires schools to test for PFAS, and four Philadelphia schools have been found in violation of state standards.
Health Risks and Hollow Victories
The stakes of the lobbying war are high. PFAS chemicals, used in countless products from non-stick pans to waterproof clothing, are linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, kidney disease, and hormone disruption. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment.
James Browning, executive director of F-Minus and a former lobbyist, said industry lobbyists frequently succeed in killing bills or pushing for “half measures.” He described a calculated “halo effect,” where the reputational damage of working for chemical companies is “mitigated by some of the good work they do for schools or cancer groups.”
This duality extends to environmental groups. The report notes that wildlife organisations sharing lobbyists with the ACC include California’s Marine Mammal Center, Oregon’s Salmon For All, and the New York League of Conservation Voters. PFAS are known to harm animals.
Legal Grey Areas and a Call to Choose Sides
State and federal laws do not prohibit firms from lobbying on both sides of an issue, and Craig Holman, an ethics lobbyist with the watchdog Public Citizen, confirmed the practice is “quite common.” However, he noted firms can be held legally liable if they share information between opposing clients, and that such work “obfuscates” a firm’s reputation as a dedicated expert.
Some client organisations are aware of the conflicts but maintain ties, while others may be unaware, Browning said. The report urges a public reckoning, calling on groups and governments to sever ties with conflicted firms—much as many did with tobacco industry lobbyists.
“The goal is to put lobbying firms that are playing both sides of the issue in the spotlight so they have to pick a side,” said Jennifer Zimmer, a spokesperson for the campaign.
The issue is particularly acute in states like Maine, which enacted a ban on non-essential PFAS uses after widespread contamination of farmland and water. The firm Preti Flaherty is working for the Cookware Sustainability Alliance to seek exemptions from the ban, while simultaneously lobbying against a bill to require insurers to cover PFAS blood testing. At the same time, Preti Flaherty lobbies for the Portland Water District, which is suing PFAS manufacturers over contaminated water.
In a statement to the Guardian, Holland & Knight defended its practices, saying it follows “rigorous ethics” and that the F-Minus report operated on a “flawed premise.” The firm argued it does not advocate on every issue for every client, implying conflicts do not exist.
The F-Minus analysis focused on six states because lobbying disclosure laws are weak elsewhere, making comprehensive tracking “virtually impossible.” The group is now assembling a federal congressional lobbying tracker to monitor the intense industry opposition that has killed most PFAS legislation in recent years.
