[jkic47]

The manufacturers would not disclose it to us beyond it was "not-PFOA", but they did agree to disclose it to the FDA upon request.

The application requires a small, inert molecule, which PFOA was, in spades. They simply made a slightly different small molecule that was almost as inert.

Small is a problem because it becomes mobile. Inert is a problem because it doesn't easily break down. Now, instead of having one "forever chemical" we have a host of them in the environment.

Not sure what the right answer is and whether we are actually better off as a result of all that work.

[isoprophlex]

Ugh. So they're replacing the "OA" bit, not the troublesome "PF" bit, and now suddenly it's all fine, dandy and legal. But still persistently toxic of course.

Also: weird (suspect?) that they didn't disclose the exact identity. I guess if you have the equipment it takes about an hour to run a gc/ms, are they just hoping to not scare people by saying upfront "it's another polyfluorinated thing"?

[jkic47]

They are under no obligation to disclose 100% of the composition of their products. Under REACH and ECHA, they might be required to disclose if (IIRC) they export > 1 tonne of the product into the EU. Typical formulations look something like

50% water 35% solvent 5% colorant (with pigment name) 10% Proprietary / Trade Secret PTFE

PFOA was used in the PTFE mfg. process, so we asked for equivalent PTFE formulations that were not mfg. with PFOA. The revenue they get from medical devices was trivial compared to non-medical (waterproofing) applications and accounted for 90% of Regulatory risks, so they often met requests with a "take it or leave it" response.

Given the sclerotic pace at which government agencies move to approve changes of magnitude, and given the MASSIVE testing burden required, this effectively meant "take it".

[486sx33]

This is very common, one chemical gets banned so they make a more convoluted version

[Teknomancer]

Welcome to capitalism fellas.