3M Faces New Cancer Claims in Minnesota’s $5B Lawsuit

Chemicals once used by 3M Co. for Scotchgard, fire retardants and other products have shown links to cancers and premature births, Minnesota’s State Attorney General said in a request to update a $5 billion lawsuit against the company.

Minnesota, which initially sued in state court for natural-resource damages in 2010, is now seeking punitive damages as well, it said in court filings on Nov. 17. Elevated levels of cancers, leukemia, premature births and lower fertility have been found in the suburbs east of St. Paul, Minnesota where 3M dumped the chemicals for more than 40 years, the state said. 3M also concealed health risks from regulators and distorted science on the chemicals, according to the filing.

The company best known for Post-it notes said in its own court filings that the $5 billion lawsuit is “misguided” and that it’s entitled to a judgment in its favor because the state didn’t bring its complaint within a required time limit. The company phased out the chemicals in question, known as PFOS and PFOA, by 2002, it said.

“We believe the State’s case lacks merit,” William A. Brewer III, a lawyer for 3M, said in a statement. “The case is based on the mistaken belief that the mere presence of these chemicals presents harm to human health and the environment. Most importantly, 3M believes these chemicals present no harm at the levels they are observed in Minnesota,” he said, calling the lawsuit an “abuse of power” by Attorney General Lori Swanson.

3M’s court filings say there is a “clear weight of scientific evidence” that shows the state has sustained no injuries to its natural resource, let alone more than $5 billion in damages.

The motion to amend a seven-year-old lawsuit shows how liabilities can shift over time with changing science and advancing research. It comes as companies including DowDuPont Inc. and Chemours Co. have faced new issues on the same class of chemicals, alternately known as perfluorinated compounds, PFCs or PFAS, which are used to make products such as Teflon cookware, waterproof fabrics and grease-resistant food packaging. The new generation of chemicals made to replace older, phased-out formulations are also being investigated.

A regulatory filing by 3M last month didn’t estimate a loss from the suit, and said that in cases where the company didn’t do so, its liabilities weren’t probable or possible to estimate.

Minnesota’s court filing cited a scientist who found that fertility and birth outcomes in the areas affected by the chemicals were lower than in other communities. The analysis also noted a “statistically significant” increase in certain cancers associated with the chemicals — including of the breast, bladder, kidney and prostate — as well as increased levels of leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma compared with the rest of Minnesota.

3M said in its court filings that Minnesota knew or should have known about the potential for environmental contamination before May 2007, making it too late to bring the lawsuit, and that the state is trying to recover the cost of cleaning up the chemicals through a natural-resource damages claim, something prohibited by state law.

The chemicals, once used in fire-fighting foams, have also led to lawsuits against 3M from individuals who say nearby airports or other locations where the foams were used polluted their drinking water.

A trial in the case, which for some time was in court-ordered mediation, is scheduled for Feb. 13.

The case is State of Minnesota v. 3M Co.; 27-cv-10-28862, County of Hennepin, District Court.