Raleigh, NC: (919) 277-9299
Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) manufacturers fooled fire departments for years with marketing tactics that emphasized the foam’s benefits instead of its hazardous active ingredients. The glossy pages of fire industry magazines featured fire foam on every other page, applauding its efficacy through eye-catching visuals and compelling headlines. Some fire service publications’ AFFF advertising included scare tactics to convince firefighters that using these foams was the only way to stay safe.
After purchasing stockpiles and using the foam to suppress fires for decades, firefighters discovered the truth: The per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that give AFFF its strong suppression capabilities also are linked to thyroid disease, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, kidney cancer, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer.
Concealing the health risks in marketing materials was standard for AFFF manufacturers. The ads and sales documents relied on carefully worded headlines and vague interpretations, preying on individuals looking for safe, reliable, and cost-effective suppressants.
Though these chemical producers had science-based evidence warning them of the dangers of AFFF, their marketing messages did not reveal it. Sales sheets, ads, and marketing materials continued to trumpet the innovative technology, never touching on the fact that the suppressants were toxic.
Sales Materials Omitted AFFF Health Risks
The personnel in charge of purchasing fire suppressant concentrates and equipment for municipal fire departments and military installations used manufacturer-created sales sheets, fliers, and handouts to inform their decisions. These documents were designed to sell as much AFFF as possible, positioning AFFF as the effective and affordable solution all fire departments needed.
Technical sheets were frequent marketing materials used to sell purchasers on the benefits of AFFF. With feature-loaded descriptions, chemical properties (without any mention of PFAS), bullet points highlighting AFFF’s benefits, and a list of distributor locations, purchase decisions were easy.
One such technical marketing sheet from 1989 showed a blatant disregard for the impact of AFFF on the environment and public health (manufacturers knew the hazards of PFAS at least 10 years earlier). The document featured completely false statements, some of which are outlined below:
- Based on the test results, the product is low in toxicity and can be treated in biological treatment systems.
- Use has not adversely affected animals and aquatic life.
- The product is biodegradable.
Even 30 years later, AFFF marketing sheets haven’t become reliable documents for decision-makers. Other sales materials proclaim there is no environmental impact, and forego health statements completely, letting consumers assume the product quality audit reports and compliance approvals cover all aspects of the foam (instead of the performance, only).
Inflated Ads Marketed AFFF
Manufacturers knew AFFF contained hazardous PFAS, but never revealed these findings to anyone, including the innocent firefighters continually exposed to its toxins. These businesses released ad after ad applauding the suppressant, and as far as customers knew, the headlines weren’t exaggerating; the suppressants were, indeed, effective and economical—but they were also dangerous. Chemical companies hid AFFF case studies and disregarded internal whistleblowers who warned stakeholders about the hazardous nature of PFAS, never adjusting the wording in fire service publications or AFFF advertising.
It wasn’t just the language in ads that suggested AFFF was safe, though. One ad featured a waterfall suggesting the aqueous chemicals were natural and safe; others highlighted photos of children and homes with ominous headlines like, “Better safe than sorry” towering over their fire suppressant brand logos.
AFFF Marketing Tactics Preyed on Policy Changes
A major turning point in the timeline of AFFF use and regulations was the 2010/2015 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Stewardship Program. This initiative encouraged manufacturers to cease producing C8, a fire foam with long-chain PFAS, and focus instead on developing fluorosurfactants with shorter carbon chain lengths.