An article from The Washington Post titled “Study: PFAS could cause more infant deaths” appeared in the Concord Monitor on Dec. 11. It struck me that the first sentence referred specifically to New Hampshire. It read, “Mothers in New Hampshire who were downstream of sites contaminated with ‘forever chemicals’ experienced triple the rate of infant deaths and had more premature births or babies with low birth weights.”
Previous research, according to the article, has shown a causal link between high levels of PFAS exposure during pregnancy with weaker infant immune systems, and it has been found that the toxic contaminant can be passed unintentionally to babies through breast milk.
That is not news anyone wants to hear. PFAS, used in numerous everyday products, have earned the nickname “forever chemicals” for their resistance to decomposition. Most of us have heard mention of the closure of a fabric coating operation in Merrimack, reliant on the water resistance of PFAS, which resulted in contamination of the air and water in Merrimack. As a result, as many as 500 families are continually supplied with drinking water because their water source is polluted, and it is a matter of public record that residents of all ages have suffered numerous health challenges. They are paying a high price for that exposure.
After reading the article, I set about perusing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency website to explore what it is doing to ameliorate the many known environmental dangers of PFAS, one of thousands of pollutants. I found that this past spring it proposed weakening drinking water standards out of concern that the cost of compliance involving testing PFAS contaminants in drinking water and reduction of six common PFAS. Industry leaders questioned the science and applied pressure against the regulations asserting that the cost is too high.
Lee Zeldin, head of the EPA, has proposed a rule that would extend the compliance date to 2031, a rule it aims to finalize this spring. Along with that, it encourages states seeking primacy for implementing the PFAS drinking water regulation to request additional time to develop their applications — additional time, while the public is suffering the consequences of “forever chemical” contamination. The cost of compliance is prioritized over the cost to human lives and recurrent health problems that interfere with livelihood.
The kicker is the administration’s proposed 50% cut to the entire EPA.
This January, our U.S. Senators, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan and U.S. Representative Chris Pappas will have the opportunity to go to the floor and speak for restoration of EPA funding. Would you join me, along with members of the UCC Climate Hope Affiliate’s Concord Chapter, in calling or writing to ask that they advocate for a return to the full finding of the EPA?
When my adult children asked me what I want for Christmas, I asked that they make donations to nonprofits that support a clean environment. At this time in my life, I do not need material things. I am most concerned about protecting my children and grandchildren. They are foremost in my mind. Perhaps you would consider that idea, too?
January is a critical time in shaping priorities for 2026. Your voice is important.
Elissa Paquette lives in Wolfboro.