Controversies
Controversies tied to this brand in public sources. A listing is not a finding of fault.
Back to profile4 entries
2026
Vermont sues Saint-Gobain, DuPont and 3M over PFAS contamination in Bennington County
Lawsuit filed
The state of Vermont filed a lawsuit against multiple manufacturers, alleging that PFAS from former factories contaminated properties and well water in Bennington and Shaftsbury. The state seeks payment from Saint-Gobain, DuPont and 3M to remove PFOA chemicals from the water, prevent future exposure, connect affected homes to the municipal water system, and admit negligence.
The state of Vermont is suing multiple manufacturers, alleging they contaminated properties and well water in Bennington and Shaftsbury with PFAS from former factories. The state seeks payment from Saint-Gobain, DuPont and 3M to remove PFOA chemicals from the water, prevent future exposure, connect affected homes to the municipal water system, and admit negligence.
Stated objective. The state wants Saint-Gobain, DuPont, and 3M Company to pay to remove PFOA chemicals from the water, prevent future exposure, connect affected homes to the municipal water system, and admit their negligence.
Company response
Denial — DuPont
We have not received the complaint referenced by the Attorney General’s office, however we are extremely disappointed they have taken this action we believe is without merit.
Denial — 3M
3M disagrees with the allegations in this lawsuit.
Source excerpt
sweeping lawsuit Tuesday in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, alleging 3M, DuPont and other PFAS manufacturers “intentionally hid” known health and environmental risks from the public and state while selling toxic but profitable “forever chemicals” to consumers and corporate customers since the 1950s.
The suit seeks to hold 17 named companies financially responsible for all past and future costs associated with toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl contamination at dozens of sites across the state.
The substances have been detected at levels requiring remediation at more than 70 sites across Michigan.
2022
Colorado sues DuPont and other firefighting-foam manufacturers
Lawsuit filed
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser filed a lawsuit against 15 firefighting-foam manufacturers. The complaint alleges that DuPont de Nemours entities and other companies manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold PFAS-containing foam while knowing or having reason to know the chemicals harm the environment and human health. The lawsuit seeks cleanup and related costs. DuPont de Nemours said it had never manufactured or sold the foam, called the complaint without merit, and said it would defend itself.
Company response
Denial — DuPont de Nemours
“DuPont de Nemours has never manufactured or sold (aqueous film forming foam). We believe this complaint is without merit, and is the latest example of DuPont being improperly named in litigation.
Source excerpt
“DuPont de Nemours has never manufactured or sold (aqueous film forming foam). We believe this complaint is without merit, and is the latest example of DuPont being improperly named in litigation.
The attorney general’s lawsuit seeks to require manufacturers of the chemicals to pay for “all costs to investigate, clean up, restore and monitor contamination at all sites in the state where PFAS-containing (aqueous film forming foam) was used, released, spilled, stored or disposed of.”
2010
Agricultural biotechnology and genetically modified soybean controversy
Historical reporting and secondary accounts associate DuPont’s agricultural biotechnology activities with public controversy over genetically modified soybeans. The available reference material does not establish a single definitive incident or resolution, so the topic requires further verification.
2000
PFOA and fluorochemical environmental controversy
DuPont faced litigation, regulatory scrutiny and public criticism concerning PFOA and related fluorochemicals, including allegations about the company’s knowledge of potential health and environmental risks and the handling of related information. The matter became one of the most consequential environmental controversies associated with the historical DuPont business.