Myths and Misconceptions About AFFF and PFAS

Firefighter in turnout gear extinguishing flames

The hazards of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) have been shrouded in myths and misconceptions since its inception in the 1960s. While manufacturers saw the dangers these chemicals presented early on, they were touted as life-saving and irreplaceable. Firefighters who routinely handled AFFF were misled to believe these suppressants were safe and as a result, every shift was another chance for exposure during an emergency response or through firefighter gear and training.

Though facts about this suppressant and the PFAS it contains are easier to come by now than they were 50 years ago, there are still countless AFFF myths that need quashing. Here are 9 of the most dangerous misconceptions about AFFF that any past or present firefighter or military member ought to know:

Myth #1: AFFF Is a Superior Suppressant

Firehouses and the Department of Defense cite uncompromising suppression capabilities and ease of use as reasons for sticking with AFFF for so long. While these claims have some truth to them, the notion that these Class B foams are unfailing miracle solutions is a misconception. 

Creating the foam blanket that smothers the fire is a complex operation that requires exact techniques and apparatus (the same variables some claim as reasons the alternatives are too difficult to use). Not only must the foam application be effective, but the firefighting concentrate itself can lead to failure. The surfactant’s long shelf life offers years’ worth of opportunities for mishandling, evaporation, and contamination that can degrade the chemicals, making firefighting less effective and dangerous.

Myth #2: Modern AFFF Is Safe

Modern aqueous film-forming foam is produced using short-chain fluorotelomer-based fluorosurfactants which are not known to degrade into PFOA or PFOS, hazardous long-chain forever chemicals. This stability caused many to assume modern AFFF is safe. But, like legacy AFFF, foams made with short-chain PFAS can degrade into other chemical byproducts, such as PFHxA, PFPeA, and 5:3 FTCA. While early evidence suggests these are not carcinogenic or bioaccumulative, many short-chain PFAS are highly mobile, persistent, and concerning.

Myth #3: Not All PFAS Are Dangerous

No one can currently confirm that any PFAS are harmless, and making a blanket statement like this is especially misleading when speaking of the chemicals in firefighting foam. At least 40 new classes of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances were identified in 2017 during examinations of sites contaminated with AFFF. A majority of the novel compounds were derived through electrochemical fluorination, the process legacy AFFF used, and at least two of these PFAS were produced similarly to modern AFFF. This suggests that all known PFAS classes show some persistence (which is what leads to bioaccumulation and cell mutations). 

Answering “How toxic is AFFF?” and similar questions through studies on existing and novel PFAS is an ongoing process, but it is clear that all classes, chain lengths, and pathways of exposure offer the potential for irreversible damage.

Myth #4: Switching to Fluorine-Free Foams Solves Everything

Switching from AFFF (fluorinated foam) to FFFF (fluorine-free foam) may offer a safer solution for future firefighters, but for generations of first responders and military members, this swap doesn’t solve anything. Manufacturers developing alternatives to AFFF have proven that lucrative government contracts and product sales are worth more than the lives of those the concentrates were designed to protect. 

In time, AFFF lawsuits can force manufacturers to admit to past negligence and improve their standards moving forward. Then perhaps these producers will work on actual solutions to address past damages inflicted upon the environment and public health.

Myth #5: Manufacturers Were Transparent About the Hazards of AFFF

Internal documents, studies, meeting notes, and emails between colleagues at manufacturing companies have surfaced revealing 20 or 30 years of past knowledge of the hazards of AFFF. So many firefighters and service members throughout the timeline of AFFF use could have been spared devastating health effects had these companies been forthcoming about early findings instead of ignoring these daunting indications and burying the evidence. 

3M is one producer that frequently makes headlines for its negligence regarding transparency about PFAS toxicity, and the company’s handling of AFFF is equally disappointing. Instead of acknowledging and addressing the harm these chemicals caused, manufacturers are opting to delay recovery for firefighters and their families in a futile attempt to avoid accountability once again.

Myth #6: Production and Use of AFFF Ceased Once PFAS Were Identified

AFFF still contains PFAS to this day, though the production methods and derivative compounds are different from the first formulations. 3M announced in 2000 it would phase out the manufacture of AFFF containing long-chain PFAS. After the production of legacy AFFF ceased in 2002, its modern cousin (containing short-chain PFAS) became the focus of nearly all chemical manufacturers in the field.

Replacing stocks of legacy formulations with modern AFFF took more than a decade to complete at military installations. And still, tanks of legacy AFFF remain on bases, naval ships, and in aircraft hangers. Recently, the Department of Defense ordered military bases to cease using PFAS-containing AFFF by October 1, 2024. Though this push is promising, civilian firefighting installations aren’t required to follow military specifications. Some state laws ban AFFF, but unless federal regulations are enacted, its use is permitted in locations without clear legislation.

Myth #7: Exposure to Trace Amounts of PFOA/PFOS Is Safe

Exposure to any source of PFOA or PFOS, including AFFF, in any amount, should be a reason for concern. These toxic chemicals are absorbed in the body and remain there, building up over time and causing epigenetic changes, which are hallmarks of cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a lifetime health advisory for PFOA and PFOS in 2016 and has since listed the public health goal for exposure to this chemical as ‘zero’ in response to the identified cancer risks.

Myth #8: The Correlation Between Cancer and Firefighting Is Inflated

While heart disease and cardiac events used to be the primary health concerns for firefighters, cancer has now become the number one threat. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified occupational exposure as a firefighter as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1) based on sufficient evidence it causes cancers that are closely tied to exposure to PFAS.

Myth #9: There’s Nothing Firefighters Can Do About PFAS Exposure

Firefighters do not have to sit quietly while their lives are forever changed after a devastating diagnosis. A multidistrict litigation (MDL) includes thousands of qualified AFFF lawsuit participants taking action against the manufacturers. If you’re ready to speak up and join the fight, our legal team is ready to advocate for you and your family.