Some Top US Lobbying Firms Are Working Both Sides of the Pfas Issue at the Same Time

Why It Matters

The conflict erodes trust in policy advocacy and can stall or dilute regulations intended to curb harmful PFAS contamination, affecting public health and water safety.

Key Takeaways

• Holland & Knight represents both PFAS makers and cancer groups.
• KP Affairs spent $275k lobbying both sides of CA PFAS.
• 132 local governments share lobbyists with PFAS manufacturers.
• State laws permit firms to lobby both sides, harming credibility.
• F‑Minus plans congressional lobby tracker to expose conflicts.

Pulse Analysis

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have earned the moniker “forever chemicals” because they persist in the environment and accumulate in human tissue. Scientific studies link exposure to cancer, immune suppression, hormonal disruption, and birth defects, prompting state legislatures and the federal government to draft bans, cleanup funds, and testing mandates. As the regulatory tide rises, the chemical industry has mobilized a sophisticated lobbying apparatus to protect its market share, while public‑health groups and environmental NGOs seek stricter limits to safeguard drinking water and consumer products.

The F‑Minus investigation uncovers a systematic pattern where top lobbying firms simultaneously represent PFAS producers and the very organizations that advocate for tighter controls. Holland & Knight, for instance, advises the American Chemistry Council while also billing the American Cancer Society. KP Affairs alone allocated $275,000 to push both for and against California’s SB 682 consumer‑product ban. This “double‑dipping” allows firms to claim victories on opposite sides of a bill, diluting legislative momentum and creating a financial incentive to keep the controversy alive.

Such conflicts of interest undermine the credibility of policy advocacy and risk delaying essential health protections. The practice mirrors the tobacco industry’s historic use of front groups to sow doubt, prompting calls for stricter disclosure rules and outright bans on representing opposing clients in the same policy arena. F‑Minus’s planned congressional lobbying tracker could shine a light on hidden relationships, while lawmakers and NGOs may need to vet firms more rigorously. Cutting ties with conflicted lobbyists could accelerate meaningful PFAS regulation and restore public trust.