The Nike Sport Band is one of the PFAS-containing bands Apple offers
Apple is facing a class-action lawsuit that claims the company deliberately conceals the use of potentially harmful chemicals in certain Apple Watch bands. However, Apple asserts that the bands are safe to wear.
On Tuesday, a class action lawsuit filed by the Northern District of California, first spotted by The Register was levied against Apple. The lawsuit claimed that some Apple Watch bands the company manufactures contain a high level of per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
According to the lawsuit, three Apple Watch bands have high concentrations of PFAS: the Apple Watch Sport Band, the Nike Sport Band, and the Ocean Band. Because Apple describes these bands as made from fluoroelastomer, the lawsuit alleges that Apple knowingly conceals the presence of PFAS, which is linked to adverse health effects.
The lawsuit was a result of new research released by the University of Notre Dame in December. The study tested 22 fitness tracker and smartwatch bands and found 15 had PFAS.
Of those 15, nine had concerningly high levels of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA). While the study didn’t name Apple — or any other brand — specifically, it does state that elevated levels of PFHxA were more prevalent in higher-priced watchbands, or those costing more than $15.
What Apple’s said
On Thursday, Apple issued a statement in response to the lawsuit. The company insists that the bands are safe to wear.
“Apple Watch bands are safe for users to wear. In addition to our own testing, we also work with independent laboratories to conduct rigorous testing and analysis of the materials used in our products, including Apple Watch bands.”
Apple has been aware of the controversy surrounding PFAS for some time now and plans to phase out the use of PFAS in its products. In November 2022, the company released a report addressing the use of PFAS and its research into developing suitable alternatives.
In the report, it noted that it had already eliminated two particularly worrisome PFAS substances from its products, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), by restricting their use in 2010 and 2013. In 2021, it restricted the use of perfluorocarboxylic acids C9-C14 (PFCA) and related substances, and perfluorohexanoicacid (PFHxS) and its related substances.
In the report, Apple goes on to say:
“While our analysis indicated that these materials are safe during product use, we felt it important to broaden our scope to consider manufacturing along the supply chain. We concluded that our goal needs to restrict the use of all PFAS compounds.”
It does, however, note that the process will take time and that it is not taking the task lightly. It points out that it will need to compile a catalog of PFAS use in electronics, and then both identify and develop non-PFAS alternatives.
“Lastly we need to ensure that the non-PFAS alternatives do not result in regrettable substitutions — where alternatives are as harmful as, or even more harmful than, the PFAS being replaced,” Apple wrote.
Why it matters, and why it’s not simple to evaluate
PFAS are a group of over 14,000 synthetic chemicals, known for their ability to make products resistant to water, oil, grease, and heat. PFAS have been used in consumer products worldwide since the 1950s.
Often dubbed “forever chemicals” due to how slowly they degrade over time, PFAS can take hundreds, if not thousands, of years to break down. In addition to some models of Apple Watch bands, PFAS are also found in food packaging, personal hygiene products like shampoo and dental floss, nonstick cookware, clothing, household construction materials, and more.
According to the CDC, research suggests that exposure to certain PFAS could result in negative health effects. These include, but are not limited to cancer, increased cholesterol levels, immune system suppression, hormonal disorders, and negative reproductive effects, including harm to children in the womb.
Like many things, effects vary between individuals and are dependent on exposure level, exposure mechanism, as well as age, weight, and overall health of the individual.
Microwave popcorn bags and soda bottles have both been found to contain PFAS | Image credit: lee_2 on Pixabay
Exposure to PFAS doesn’t solely stem from direct contact with PFAS-containing products. You can also be exposed to PFAS through drinking contaminated water, consuming contaminated food, or inhaling contaminated air.
While everyone is inevitably exposed to PFAS, most exposure levels are relatively low. High levels of exposure are usually occupational and seen in those who work in chemicals manufacturing and processing, as well as firefighters — and two AppleInsider staff members who served in the Navy — who routinely were exposed to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) to control flammable liquid fires.
Ultimately, it’s a net positive that Apple plans on reducing its use of PFAS in its products. But even if it does, it won’t make a significant impact on a consumer’s exposure levels, even if they wear their Apple Watch around the clock.
