PFAS are still being studied, but their effects are already felt statewide. In Oscoda, resident Greg Cole said he was forced to get drinking water from the spigot behind the township hall for months after his well was found to be contaminated and before health officials provided a water cooler.

Across the state in Belmont near Grand Rapids, Jennifer Carney spent years plagued with headaches, dizziness and trouble walking, only to have it clear up after she stopped drinking contaminated water. Her neighbor Sandy Wynn-Stelt’s husband died of liver cancer just a year before officials found PFAS levels 750 times the national average in her blood.

Companies in the United States have phased out some types PFAS thought to be most hazardous. But the chemicals are not banned, and companies continue to manufacture other types of PFAS whose health risks aren't known. The EPA has set advisory levels, which are unenforceable, for only two of the thousands of PFAS compounds.

Whitmer’s proposed contamination limits for public drinking water systems would help protect communities against seven compounds. While generally applauded by environmentalists, some have raised concern that her proposals would only address a handful of the PFAS.

Michigan’s science advisory workgroup acknowledged other PFAS compounds are likely to have similar effects as the ones Whitmer proposes to regulate. But the workgroup said it lacked enough information to recommend health-based limits.

For other unregulated PFAS compounds, “additional monitoring, research for potential sources, notification of the public, and efforts to reduce exposure are warranted,” the work group wrote in a June report developed for the PFAS Action Response Team.

Michigan’s response, however belated, is being closely watched nationally because many experts believe PFAS contamination could soon become a national crisis. The nonprofit Environmental Working Group has tallied around 610 locations in 43 states where PFAS have been found. The group wrote when announcing their findings: “The known extent of (PFAS) contamination ... continues to grow at an alarming rate, with no end in sight.”

The precautionary principle

From survivors of the PBB crisis to the new activists of the PFAS crisis, nearly all affected asked one question: Why do we let this happen in the first place?

“We shouldn’t be developing chemicals that we don’t know what they’re going to do. Don’t develop this ... with the idea, ‘Oh we’ll find out if it’s poisonous later, after it poisons you,’” said Wynn-Stelt, one of the affected residents in Belmont and a leader of a new community group providing the EPA input on remediation efforts.

“We don’t do that with medication, we don’t do that with cars. So I don’t know why would we do that with chemicals that we put in the world. Those need to be scrutinized just like it was a pill your kid was going to take.”

Wynn-Stelt is suggesting what environmental scholars call “the precautionary principle.”

Advocates of the precautionary principle argue that regulators should shift the burden of proof: Chemicals should be proven safe before use, rather than proven dangerous afterward. Scientists who support this practice compare it with the doctor’s oath — first, do no harm.

We shouldn’t be developing chemicals that we don’t know what they’re going to do. Don’t develop this … with the idea, ‘Oh we’ll find out if it’s poisonous later, after it poisons you.’ ” – Sandy Wynn-Stelt of Belmont, leader of a community group that formed in response to PFAS contamination

Ed Lorenz, a professor emeritus of history and political science at Alma College who has studied the PBB crisis in St. Louis for decades, and other proponents of the precautionary principle argue that a thriving economy doesn’t necessarily have to be predicated on risks to human health.

“It’s false economic development to think that producing a contaminant that’s going to cause generational problems… is somehow the type of economic development we need. We don’t need that kind of economic development,” Lorenz said, adding that federal policy would make the biggest difference and would help stem the problem of pushing businesses to other, less-regulated states.

The European Union incorporates the precautionary principle in its chemical regulations. In 2007, it adopted a policy known as REACH that puts the burden on chemical manufacturers to prove their products are safe.

A 2016 European Commission report concluded that REACH has a “minor negative impact on the competitiveness of the EU industry” compared to outside countries, though some regulated companies interviewed for the study identified benefits of the policy — including more transparency within the industry and across supply chains.

“At least one case company considers that complying with REACH can be used to brand its products as environment-friendly in other markets,” the report said. A 2005 European Commission study estimated that REACH would yield up to €50 billion (about $55 billion in the United States) in environmental and health benefits over the next 25 years. The commission hasn’t yet analyzed the policy’s benefits in practice.