Do you know what per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are or where they are? PFAS (stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are literally everywhere. These chemicals developed in the 1940s make things resistant to water, grease, and stains, they are in our clothing, nonstick cookware, furniture, paints, polishes, shoes and so much more.
They are chains of carbon atoms that are bound to fluorine, they are often called forever chemicals, they move easily through the environment, and they are putting our health at risk.
“We started with a couple of PFAS, used for things like Teflon and Scotchgard,” says Anna Reade, director of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
“Now, the Environmental Protection Agency has cataloged over 14,000 different PFAS for which there are over 200 different use categories. Think cleaning products, cosmetics, stain-resistant sofas and carpets, water-resistant clothing, or gear like raincoats.”
Forever chemicals that get around
“I’ve heard chemists describe their bonds as the strongest in chemistry,” says Jamie DeWitt, director of the Environmental Health Sciences Center at Oregon State University. “That bond imparts a lot of durability. But it also means that there are no natural processes—in us or the environment—to break down PFAS.”
“They settle into soil, into groundwater,” explains Reade. “They move through ocean currents and the air. We now have PFAS in the Arctic and PFAS in rainwater across the globe at higher levels than the EPA considers safe for drinking water.”
“It’s a perfect storm, not only of persistence and mobility, but also of accumulation, because many PFAS build up in our bodies. It’s the result of decades of widespread, largely unchecked use of chemicals that don’t break down.”
Exposure to PFAS
“One of the more complex areas of research is trying to understand people’s exposure to PFAS because everybody is different,” says Reade
Work
“People with the highest exposure are typically those who work with PFAS,” DeWitt explains. That includes people who work at a facility that produces PFAS or firefighters who are exposed to firefighting foam or outerwear that contain high levels of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.”
Water
“If you live in a community with substantial drinking water contamination, the majority of your PFAS exposure is from your water,” says Reade.
For example, the Cape Fear River in North Carolina. “It has high concentrations of PFAS due to a nearby PFAS production facility that has discharged PFAS into the river for decades,” says DeWitt.
“For decades, the Department of Defense required the use of PFAS-based foams at its military bases,” says Reade. “And the Federal Aviation Administration models its requirements after the DOD, so all major airports used that foam as well.”
Firefighting foam is a major cause of water contamination, a single fire or training event can release thousands of gallons of foam into the environment. However, in 2023 the Department of Defense updated guidelines to require firefighting foam to contain no intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.
“There are over 700 DOD sites across the U.S., plus all the airports,” notes Reade. “If you think about the number of sites that could have used this firefighting foam, plus the volume of foam that’s used, the impact is enormous.”
“If you live near an airport or a military base, that foam may have been contaminating the groundwater that serves your public water system or your private well for decades.”
Food
The frightening part about per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances is that no one knows the extent to which they contaminate our food or the extent of its effects. Even freshwater fish can be contaminated.
“For the rest of us, who don’t deal with occupational or drinking water PFAS exposure, the majority of our exposure is probably from our diet,” says DeWitt.
“High PFAS levels are commonly detected in freshwater fish and seafood,” says David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group. Some studies have also found PFAS in meat, dairy, poultry, eggs, and some fruits and vegetables. “And the FDA has found per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances contamination in greens grown near PFAS manufacturing facilities in North Carolina,” adds Andrews.
“We estimated that consuming just one serving of the freshwater fish we analyzed in an entire year would likely have a measurable impact on PFAS levels in the blood,” says Andrews.
Packaging
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are widely used to coat paper and cardboard for packing like take-out containers, fast food wrappers, pizza boxes, and microwave popcorn bags. They are likely to leach into food from the packaging it is in, and the longer it is in contact and the hotter the temperature of the food the more likely it will happen, but how much migrates into the food remains to be the big question that hasn’t been answered since development.
Around the house
They really haven’t been studied enough, considering how widely they have been used. You could be exposed just sitting at home, you could breathe in some per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances dust from your furniture, carpet, or upholstery. Have anything that has been Scotch Guarded before 2020, the chances are even higher.
Potential harm to health
Even though over 14,000 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances have been logged by the EPA only a handful have been studied fairly well. In 2022 that handful was re-examined and the findings revealed that there was “sufficient evidence” that exposure to them was linked to an increased risk of kidney cancer, higher blood cholesterol, lower birth weights, and blunted antibody response to vaccines.
Blunted antibody responses put people at risk for infections and represent overall immune suppression.
Additionally, higher blood levels may be linked to testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, altered liver enzymes, and high blood pressure during pregnancy, but more research is required on these outcomes.
The risk
The specific exposure levels at which per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances may cause harm are still unknown, however, some experts offer general guidelines.
“They grouped people into three categories,” DeWitt explains. “If you have less than 2 nanograms of PFAS per milliliter in your blood—based on the sum of 7 different per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—you’re considered to be at low risk. If you have 2 to 20 nanograms per milliliter, you’re at slightly elevated risk. And if you’re above 20 nanograms per milliliter, you’re at elevated risk.” (Most people in the U.S. fall in the 2-to-20 ng/mL range.)
“PFAS are in nearly all of us,” says DeWitt. “Some only last for days, others stay in us for years.”
What this means is that if somehow you were able to make sure that you were never exposed to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances again starting right now, it would take several years for the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances to clear out of your body, even still some of them would remain.
New limits
The FDA announced that there recently was a “voluntary commitment by manufacturers” to make sure that there are no more per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances-containing food packaging sold in America. However, don’t give them the credit, this was largely due to 12 states banning the use of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food packaging due to public concern and attention.
While this is good news, we need to take it with a grain of salt because the FDA did not ban per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in packing, which means that it is unclear the extent or for how long manufacturer compliance will last as it is not being monitored.
Recently the EPA also finalized new rules for water, setting strict limits of 6 per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in public drinking water. “The EPA estimates that up to 105 million people in the U.S. get their water from utilities with PFAS levels that exceed the new standards,” says Reade.
“Two of the PFAS—PFOA and PFOS —are largely no longer produced in the U.S., but because they don’t break down, they’re still in our drinking water and in our bodies,” says Reade. “Those two have been linked to cancer, and the EPA says there is no safe level of exposure to them.”
“The rules also limit four additional PFAS, which have many of the same health effects as PFOA and PFOS, though their connection with cancer hasn’t been as well studied,” adds Reade.
“The EPA’s new rules are a huge step forward,” says DeWitt. “And while the standards only cover six individual PFAS, it’s my understanding that once water systems are upgraded, the systems will be able to filter out a greater number of unmeasured PFAS.”
Small steps
While progress has been made, it is not enough, and more can and should be done. Regulating per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances could make a substantial difference because not all of them are necessary.
“All PFAS are persistent or break down into other persistent PFAS,” says Reade. “That is reason enough to warrant concern for the entire class and to manage the class as a whole.”
“I’m a proponent of the essential use process,” says DeWitt. “If a PFAS is not essential for the health, safety, and functioning of society, get rid of it. And if it is essential and there’s a substitute, get rid of it. Those substitutes should have lower toxicity and environmental hazards.”
Some states have already begun to pass bills that ban non-essential uses of these forever chemicals, and more states are expected to follow suit.
“Think of stain resistance on a couch,” says Reade. “It’s an extra perk, but it’s not essential to how that couch functions.”
“Some medical devices might use PFAS and may not have safer alternatives currently available,” notes Reade.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN does not agree or disagree with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement. Additionally, it is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Content may be edited for style and length.
References/Sources/Materials provided by:
https://echo.epa.gov/trends/pfas-tools
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7784712
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-023-00274-6
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9387091
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41545-023-00274-6
https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/2020-military-pfas-sites/map
https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6223
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013935122024926?via%3Dihub
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8306913
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/us-population.html
https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas
https://worldhealth.net/news/teas-processed-meats-and-food-packaging-contaminated-pfas/
https://worldhealth.net/news/exposure-food-contact-chemicals-packaging/
