Tire manufacturers, led by Michelin, Bridgestone, and Goodyear, are contesting a lawsuit brought by California fishing groups alleging harm to marine life from a chemical found in their products.
In their defense, the tire makers argue that the lawsuit bypasses the authority of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is already examining regulations concerning the chemical in question, known as 6PPD.
The fishing groups, including the Institute for Fisheries Resources and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, contend that 6PPD, which becomes harmful when degraded, is being released into West Coast watersheds, adversely affecting protected fish species.
While the tire manufacturers assert that the Endangered Species Act (ESA) does not extend to chemicals used in consumer goods that may pose risks years later and in distant locations, the plaintiffs argue that the alleged harm to fish aligns with the ESA’s intent to protect endangered species.
6PPD, a common component in tires worldwide, is utilized to prolong rubber lifespan and prevent degradation.
With the 13 defendant tire manufacturers holding a substantial share of the U.S. tire market, the fishing groups claim that declining fish populations, allegedly linked to 6PPD, have resulted in fishing restrictions and even the suspension of commercial salmon fishing in California.
The lawsuit, aimed at prohibiting the manufacture of tires containing 6PPD without safeguards for fish and watersheds, follows recent regulatory actions by both the EPA and California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control.
As the legal battle unfolds in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the case underscores the intersection of environmental protection, industrial practices, and legal jurisdiction.
