4 ms·

> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they de

by pluc 3y ago

> In a statement, Dupont said it “has never manufactured PFOA or PFOS.” CNN has reached out to the other companies for comment on the allegations, which they denied in a press release Friday. How can they stop something they never did

laputan_machine 3y ago
Then there would be no evidence, which would mean the court case would be thrown out / one-sided. Instead they settled for a large amount of money. Does that not make you raise your eyebrows?
rebolek 3y ago
you forgot /s
ceejayoz 3y ago
I don't understand that statement. It seems to be an outright lie, or quoted out of context; not sure which, and both are plausible. https://www.dupont.com/position-statements/pfoa.html https://www.dupont.com/position-statements/pfoa.html says "While we no longer make PFOA..."
- paxys 3y ago
  The settlement likely includes a provision for them not having to admit to any wrongdoing, so they can legally lie in their press release.
- HWR_14 3y ago
  Three possibilities (other than just inconsistent statements). The "we no longer" could be referring to "the US" as "we", since they talk about the FDA outlawing it. So DuPont never made PFOA. "Manufacture" might be used in the chemical industry only refer to creating products. And DuPont was earlier in the supply chain. Or, even more upstream, DuPont may have made precursor chemicals that other people mixed into the final PFOA.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  DuPont has a complicated corporate history. Chemours, one of the other companies in the settlement, is the division that made Teflon. Corteva was also part of DuPont (and Dow). It may be technically true that none of the business units currently in DuPont made anything bad.
moi2388 3y ago
DuPont is lying. They 100% did produce these materials. We have a factory on my place from which they dump this in the river.
- moneywoes 3y ago
  Maybi ask what type of factory, are there no regulations?
EscapeFromNY 3y ago
I can think of plenty of ways that sentence might be weaselly. Maybe they "synthesized" them, not "manufactured" Maybe they bought them from some other company (which they might happen to own) Maybe they manufactured PFAs in general, but not the specific chemicals PFOA or PFOS (it's an awfully specific statement, after all)
- horsawlarway 3y ago
  I think it will likely be this - I'm already seeing all sorts of companies pivot to marketing "PFOA" free teflon alternatives (Starflon was the one that popped up last). I suspect that just like the whole BPA in plastic thing - the "___ free" alternatives will not be any better. They will just be sidestepping the very precise legal definition of the chemical that got them in trouble.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    Either that or it will be like gluten-free, and you'll start seeing it slathered all over stuff that never had it in the first place. Like, no duh non-flavored sparkling water is gluten free! (Actual example I saw in the grocery store today)
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      Well something like Soy Sauce often has gluten in it and I'd say judging by the name it doesn't. So something that seems like it'd trivially not contain X may actually have X.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Not as silly as it sounds. If you've got celiac, you may want to avoid sparkling water made in a plant that also bottles wheat beers. Gluten free refers not only to the ingredients, but to the manufacturing facility. https://celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Combined-Gluten-Free-Diet-and-Food-Label-Reading-Guide.pdf https://celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Combined-..., point #6. > "The gluten-free label represents that the procedures put in place to prevent cross-contact with gluten meet FDA standards."
sebzim4500 3y ago
I am aware that companies sometimes settle cases where they are in the right in order to avoid legal fees, but the idea that Dupont paid $400M in this settlement despite having not manufactured the chemicals in question is absurd. If they thought they weren't liable then they would have fought this in court.

by pluc 3y ago

laputan_machine 3y ago

Then there would be no evidence, which would mean the court case would be thrown out / one-sided. Instead they settled for a large amount of money. Does that not make you raise your eyebrows?

rebolek 3y ago

you forgot /s

ceejayoz 3y ago

I don't understand that statement. It seems to be an outright lie, or quoted out of context; not sure which, and both are plausible. https://www.dupont.com/position-statements/pfoa.html https://www.dupont.com/position-statements/pfoa.html says "While we no longer make PFOA..."

paxys 3y ago
The settlement likely includes a provision for them not having to admit to any wrongdoing, so they can legally lie in their press release.
HWR_14 3y ago
Three possibilities (other than just inconsistent statements). The "we no longer" could be referring to "the US" as "we", since they talk about the FDA outlawing it. So DuPont never made PFOA. "Manufacture" might be used in the chemical industry only refer to creating products. And DuPont was earlier in the supply chain. Or, even more upstream, DuPont may have made precursor chemicals that other people mixed into the final PFOA.
tedunangst 3y ago
DuPont has a complicated corporate history. Chemours, one of the other companies in the settlement, is the division that made Teflon. Corteva was also part of DuPont (and Dow). It may be technically true that none of the business units currently in DuPont made anything bad.

moi2388 3y ago

DuPont is lying. They 100% did produce these materials. We have a factory on my place from which they dump this in the river.

moneywoes 3y ago
Maybi ask what type of factory, are there no regulations?

EscapeFromNY 3y ago

I can think of plenty of ways that sentence might be weaselly. Maybe they "synthesized" them, not "manufactured" Maybe they bought them from some other company (which they might happen to own) Maybe they manufactured PFAs in general, but not the specific chemicals PFOA or PFOS (it's an awfully specific statement, after all)

horsawlarway 3y ago
I think it will likely be this - I'm already seeing all sorts of companies pivot to marketing "PFOA" free teflon alternatives (Starflon was the one that popped up last). I suspect that just like the whole BPA in plastic thing - the "___ free" alternatives will not be any better. They will just be sidestepping the very precise legal definition of the chemical that got them in trouble.
- TylerE 3y ago
  Either that or it will be like gluten-free, and you'll start seeing it slathered all over stuff that never had it in the first place. Like, no duh non-flavored sparkling water is gluten free! (Actual example I saw in the grocery store today)
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    Well something like Soy Sauce often has gluten in it and I'd say judging by the name it doesn't. So something that seems like it'd trivially not contain X may actually have X.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Not as silly as it sounds. If you've got celiac, you may want to avoid sparkling water made in a plant that also bottles wheat beers. Gluten free refers not only to the ingredients, but to the manufacturing facility. https://celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Combined-Gluten-Free-Diet-and-Food-Label-Reading-Guide.pdf https://celiac.org/main/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Combined-..., point #6. > "The gluten-free label represents that the procedures put in place to prevent cross-contact with gluten meet FDA standards."

sebzim4500 3y ago

I am aware that companies sometimes settle cases where they are in the right in order to avoid legal fees, but the idea that Dupont paid $400M in this settlement despite having not manufactured the chemicals in question is absurd. If they thought they weren't liable then they would have fought this in court.