PFAS contamination has been documented in polar bears, tigers in China, plankton off the coast of Panama, and more.
By Grace van Deelen ,
PublishedFebruary 25, 2023
Fred Stone, a dairy farmer whose land and cows are contaminated with the chemicals known as PFAS, on his farm in Arundel, Maine, on January 4, 2020.
BRIANNA SOUKUP / PORTLAND PRESS HERALD VIA GETTY IMAGES
Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
This story was originally published by The New Lede.
Aclass of chemicals linked to multiple health hazards in humans have been detected in hundreds of wildlife species across the United States, according to a report issued Wednesday.
The report was released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) along with a map demonstrating that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are contaminating wildlife on every continent except Antarctica.
The data adds to several other reports of PFAS contamination in wildlife, and adds to the mounting concerns many researchers have about the long-term health and sustainability of important ecosystems.
“It’s a shocking wake-up call that much more needs to be done to protect wildlife … from the impacts of industrial chemicals,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG and an author of the report.
Did you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
This story was originally published by The New Lede.
Aclass of chemicals linked to multiple health hazards in humans have been detected in hundreds of wildlife species across the United States, according to a report issued Wednesday.
The report was released by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) along with a map demonstrating that per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, are contaminating wildlife on every continent except Antarctica.
The data adds to several other reports of PFAS contamination in wildlife, and adds to the mounting concerns many researchers have about the long-term health and sustainability of important ecosystems.
“It’s a shocking wake-up call that much more needs to be done to protect wildlife … from the impacts of industrial chemicals,” said David Andrews, a senior scientist at EWG and an author of the report.
Eating 1 Freshwater Fish Equals a Month of Drinking “Forever Chemicals” in Water
Research finds that fish from all 48 contiguous U.S. states showed PFAS contamination.
By Grace van Deelen , ENVIRONMENTALHEALTHNEWSJanuary 18, 2023
PFAS are a class of chemicals used in a wide array of industries and products. They are often referred to as ‘forever chemicals’ because they don’t break down in the environment. The chemicals have been linked to an array of human health problems, including certain cancers, reproductive issues and developmental problems.
The map showing the extent of the contamination in wildlife reflects data from 125 peer-reviewed studies of a wide range of species, including fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and mammals. PFAS contamination has been documented in polar bears in the Arctic Circle, tigers in China, plankton off the coast of Panama, crocodiles in South Africa, and many more species.
Andrews emphasized that the map only shows a fraction of the likely global contamination of wildlife, and that PFAS contamination is likely far more common than the map suggests.
“Even species in remote parts of the globe also have contamination,” he said. “It seems unlikely that any species has fully been able to escape the reaches of these chemicals.”
Heidi Pickard, a PhD candidate at Harvard University who studies PFAS in aquatic systems, agreed.
“This is just a glimpse,” she said
.
Building Evidence
The findings build on a study, published last month, showing widespread contamination of freshwater fish in the US. That report showed that the majority of freshwater fish sampled from lakes, rivers, and streams across the country had significant levels of PFAS contamination — enough that eating just one meal of caught fish per year was equivalent to drinking PFAS-contaminated water for a month.
Research suggests that PFAS has hazardous health impacts on some wildlife, though more research is needed, said Cheryl Murphy, the director of the Center for PFAS Research at Michigan State University.
“There are some harmful effects of PFAS on lab species, but also on humans. If we’re seeing impacts on lab rats and on humans, I imagine there’s going to be effects on fish and wildlife as well,” she said.
The ubiquitous contamination of wildlife could have broader ecosystem impacts, too, though more research is needed to determine if that’s the case, according to researchers.
“There’s much more research that needs to be done on how [PFAS] impacts species, especially endangered or threatened species,” said EWG’s Andrews. “But we do know a significant amount about how potent these chemicals are and their ability to interact with a wide range of biological systems, so even the documented contamination itself is cause for concern.”
A Concerning Trend
Another concerning trend shown by the map, according to Pickard, is the contamination of wildlife in remote regions, such as the Canadian Arctic, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. This contamination in far-flung areas illustrates the ability of PFAS to travel long distances across the globe, reaching wildlife that live mostly removed from common industrial sources of pollution, she said.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), a law passed in 1973 establishing protections for endangered and threatened species, could be a tool to help enforce PFAS regulation, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.
In comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last summer, the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the EPA’s current water quality criteria were “under-protective of listed species.” The group wrote that given the threat that PFAS chemicals pose to wildlife, the EPA should update its 1985 water quality guidelines for PFAS to fully comply with ESA mandates that government agencies ensure their actions are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.”
Halting production of PFAS chemicals is one primary way to prevent future wildlife contamination, said Pickard.
“Stop exposing animals to the production of these chemicals,” she said.
GRACE VAN DEELEN
Grace van Deelen is a fellow at Inside Climate News. She has also written for EHN and MIT Biology. Van Deelen holds a master’s degree in science writing from MIT, and degrees in biology and anthropology from Tufts University. You can find her on Twitter @GVD__ and on her website, gracevandeelen.weebly.com.
Building Evidence
The findings build on a study, published last month, showing widespread contamination of freshwater fish in the US. That report showed that the majority of freshwater fish sampled from lakes, rivers, and streams across the country had significant levels of PFAS contamination — enough that eating just one meal of caught fish per year was equivalent to drinking PFAS-contaminated water for a month.
Research suggests that PFAS has hazardous health impacts on some wildlife, though more research is needed, said Cheryl Murphy, the director of the Center for PFAS Research at Michigan State University.
“There are some harmful effects of PFAS on lab species, but also on humans. If we’re seeing impacts on lab rats and on humans, I imagine there’s going to be effects on fish and wildlife as well,” she said.
The ubiquitous contamination of wildlife could have broader ecosystem impacts, too, though more research is needed to determine if that’s the case, according to researchers.
“There’s much more research that needs to be done on how [PFAS] impacts species, especially endangered or threatened species,” said EWG’s Andrews. “But we do know a significant amount about how potent these chemicals are and their ability to interact with a wide range of biological systems, so even the documented contamination itself is cause for concern.”
A Concerning Trend
Another concerning trend shown by the map, according to Pickard, is the contamination of wildlife in remote regions, such as the Canadian Arctic, the Faroe Islands, and Greenland. This contamination in far-flung areas illustrates the ability of PFAS to travel long distances across the globe, reaching wildlife that live mostly removed from common industrial sources of pollution, she said.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA), a law passed in 1973 establishing protections for endangered and threatened species, could be a tool to help enforce PFAS regulation, according to the Center for Biological Diversity, a nonprofit research and advocacy group.
In comments submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) last summer, the Center for Biological Diversity stated that the EPA’s current water quality criteria were “under-protective of listed species.” The group wrote that given the threat that PFAS chemicals pose to wildlife, the EPA should update its 1985 water quality guidelines for PFAS to fully comply with ESA mandates that government agencies ensure their actions are “not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species.”
Halting production of PFAS chemicals is one primary way to prevent future wildlife contamination, said Pickard.
“Stop exposing animals to the production of these chemicals,” she said.
GRACE VAN DEELEN
Grace van Deelen is a fellow at Inside Climate News. She has also written for EHN and MIT Biology. Van Deelen holds a master’s degree in science writing from MIT, and degrees in biology and anthropology from Tufts University. You can find her on Twitter @GVD__ and on her website, gracevandeelen.weebly.com.
Michigan Researchers Find Every River Fish They Test Contains 'Forever Chemicals'
“It just demonstrates how ubiquitous these chemicals are in the environment,” one researcher said.
By Hilary Hanson
Feb 25, 2023
A Michigan environmental nonprofit tested freshwater fish caught around the state and found that all of them contained substances often called “forever chemicals,” according to a press release published Thursday.
“It just demonstrates how ubiquitous these chemicals are in the environment,” Erica Bloom, toxics campaign director at the Ecology Center, told the Guardian.
The chemicals detected were perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — a group of manufactured chemicals that break down at an extremely slow rate, meaning they can accumulate over time in the environment and in the human body. PFAS are often used in manufacturing and are also present in a slew of consumer goods, including nonstick cookware, stain repellents and food packaging, among others.
The Environmental Protection Agency warns that “exposure to certain levels of PFAS” may lead to health issues in humans that can include reproductive problems, developmental delay, hormone interference and cancer.
In Michigan, the Ecology Center worked with local anglers to catch 100 fish from 15 sites along the state’s Huron and Rouge rivers. Researchers tested 12 different species of commonly consumed fish, including bluegill, smallmouth bass and river chub.
Two people examining a bluegill, one of the species of fish tested in the new study.
Fourteen different PFAS chemicals were detected, with a range of 11,000 to 133,000 parts per trillion. One chemical in particular, known as PFOS, was found in every fish.
Michigan issues a “do not eat” advisory when PFOS levels reach 300,000 parts per trillion. However, the EPA’s recommended limit for PFOS in drinking water is 0.02 parts per trillion — which, the Guardian notes, indicates that almost no amount is considered safe to consume.
The Ecology Center wants Michigan not only to make its PFOS advisory guidelines stricter, but also to establish guidelines for other PFAS chemicals.
The new results are in line with an unaffiliated study published by the scientific journal Environmental Research in December. That report said freshwater fish consumption is “likely a significant source of exposure” to PFOS. Fish in the Great Lakes and urban areas were found to have especially high levels of contamination.
“You’d have to drink an incredible amount of water — we estimate a month of contaminated water — to get the same exposure as you would from a single serving of freshwater fish,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at Environmental Working Group who co-authored the December study, told CNN.
“It just demonstrates how ubiquitous these chemicals are in the environment,” one researcher said.
By Hilary Hanson
Feb 25, 2023
A Michigan environmental nonprofit tested freshwater fish caught around the state and found that all of them contained substances often called “forever chemicals,” according to a press release published Thursday.
“It just demonstrates how ubiquitous these chemicals are in the environment,” Erica Bloom, toxics campaign director at the Ecology Center, told the Guardian.
The chemicals detected were perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS — a group of manufactured chemicals that break down at an extremely slow rate, meaning they can accumulate over time in the environment and in the human body. PFAS are often used in manufacturing and are also present in a slew of consumer goods, including nonstick cookware, stain repellents and food packaging, among others.
The Environmental Protection Agency warns that “exposure to certain levels of PFAS” may lead to health issues in humans that can include reproductive problems, developmental delay, hormone interference and cancer.
In Michigan, the Ecology Center worked with local anglers to catch 100 fish from 15 sites along the state’s Huron and Rouge rivers. Researchers tested 12 different species of commonly consumed fish, including bluegill, smallmouth bass and river chub.
Two people examining a bluegill, one of the species of fish tested in the new study.
Fourteen different PFAS chemicals were detected, with a range of 11,000 to 133,000 parts per trillion. One chemical in particular, known as PFOS, was found in every fish.
Michigan issues a “do not eat” advisory when PFOS levels reach 300,000 parts per trillion. However, the EPA’s recommended limit for PFOS in drinking water is 0.02 parts per trillion — which, the Guardian notes, indicates that almost no amount is considered safe to consume.
The Ecology Center wants Michigan not only to make its PFOS advisory guidelines stricter, but also to establish guidelines for other PFAS chemicals.
The new results are in line with an unaffiliated study published by the scientific journal Environmental Research in December. That report said freshwater fish consumption is “likely a significant source of exposure” to PFOS. Fish in the Great Lakes and urban areas were found to have especially high levels of contamination.
“You’d have to drink an incredible amount of water — we estimate a month of contaminated water — to get the same exposure as you would from a single serving of freshwater fish,” David Andrews, a senior scientist at Environmental Working Group who co-authored the December study, told CNN.
A slew of state proposals shows the threat of 'forever chemicals'
More than a dozen states have now banned substances known as "forever chemicals."
Alex Brown Stateline.org
In rivers and groundwater, in human bloodstreams and products ranging from cosmetics to food packaging to carpets, researchers are increasingly finding “forever chemicals” that don’t break down naturally and are shown to cause health issues.
Several states passed landmark laws in recent years, and now dozens of legislatures are considering hundreds of bills to crack down on using such compounds. The legislation would strengthen product disclosure laws, increase liability for polluters, bolster testing plans and enact water quality standards.
Thousands of chemicals make up the group known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. They have been found in an increasing number of watersheds and aquifers, as well as in the blood of nearly every American.
Some PFAS compounds, research shows, can increase the risk of cancer, damage immune systems, cause metabolic disorders and decrease fertility.
What are PFAS and why are they dangerous?
PFAS are chemicals that can be found in water, soil and consumer products and have been associated with harmful health effects. Source: "Environmental Toxic Substance Assessment 2022 Update," prepared by the University of Arizona Environmental Health Sciences Center and published by the Pima County Health Department.
“There’s a lot of urgency,” said Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, an alliance of environmental health groups focused on toxic chemicals. “I’m seeing more states try to take really big bites at managing the PFAS crisis.”
Doll’s group tracked more than 260 proposals in 31 states related to toxic chemicals, many focused on PFAS. Eleven of those states will consider restrictions or bans on PFAS across many economic sectors. Those bills follow a Maine law passed in 2021 that was the first in the country to ban PFAS in all new products, which will take effect in 2030.
“We’ve got a problem in this state, and we’ve got to address it,” said Minnesota state Rep. Jeff Brand, a Democrat who sponsored a bill to ban products with intentionally added PFAS by 2025. “We’ve got to do all of these things at once. Every time somebody goes to the store and buys something of this nature, they're inadvertently putting this stuff into their bodies.”
Brand’s bill covers a wide swath of products and would take effect Jan. 1, 2025. Minnesota settled a lawsuit with the 3M Company in 2018, requiring the company to pay $850 million for the alleged effects of its PFAS pollution on drinking water and natural resources.
3M's Cordova chemical plant Dec. 7, 2022, on the Mississippi River upstream from the Quad Cities. The company dumps highly toxic PFAS chemicals into the river.E. Jason Wambsgans, Chicago Tribune
According to Safer States, lawmakers in Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont are expected to offer proposals against PFAS in products across a multitude of industries.
“If it’s not in products, you don’t have to worry about people being exposed to it,” said Mara Herman, environmental health program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. “Turning off the tap is an area that a lot of states are focused on.”
Meanwhile, some industry groups are pointing out that PFAS compounds are still essential for products ranging from medical devices to electric vehicles. They argue that only some PFAS compounds have been shown to cause harm, and sweeping laws to ban them could do serious economic damage. Some state laws include exemptions for products with no viable alternative to PFAS.
Some lawmakers are taking a narrower approach. In Washington, state Rep. Sharlett Mena, a Democrat, sponsored a bill that would ban certain chemicals — including PFAS — from cosmetic products.
“We have safer products, so we shouldn’t be putting these harmful things in cosmetics we use every day,” she said. “There's a simple level of trust that when we pick something out at the store, it's vetted and safe to use.”
Washington lawmakers passed a bill last year instructing the state Department of Ecology to issue restrictions on PFAS by 2025. Mena, who works as an employee for the agency, said it was crucial to take on a broad range of harmful chemicals, found disproportionately in cosmetic products marketed to people of color.
More than a dozen states have now banned substances known as "forever chemicals."
Alex Brown Stateline.org
In rivers and groundwater, in human bloodstreams and products ranging from cosmetics to food packaging to carpets, researchers are increasingly finding “forever chemicals” that don’t break down naturally and are shown to cause health issues.
Several states passed landmark laws in recent years, and now dozens of legislatures are considering hundreds of bills to crack down on using such compounds. The legislation would strengthen product disclosure laws, increase liability for polluters, bolster testing plans and enact water quality standards.
Thousands of chemicals make up the group known as perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. They have been found in an increasing number of watersheds and aquifers, as well as in the blood of nearly every American.
Some PFAS compounds, research shows, can increase the risk of cancer, damage immune systems, cause metabolic disorders and decrease fertility.
What are PFAS and why are they dangerous?
PFAS are chemicals that can be found in water, soil and consumer products and have been associated with harmful health effects. Source: "Environmental Toxic Substance Assessment 2022 Update," prepared by the University of Arizona Environmental Health Sciences Center and published by the Pima County Health Department.
“There’s a lot of urgency,” said Sarah Doll, national director of Safer States, an alliance of environmental health groups focused on toxic chemicals. “I’m seeing more states try to take really big bites at managing the PFAS crisis.”
Doll’s group tracked more than 260 proposals in 31 states related to toxic chemicals, many focused on PFAS. Eleven of those states will consider restrictions or bans on PFAS across many economic sectors. Those bills follow a Maine law passed in 2021 that was the first in the country to ban PFAS in all new products, which will take effect in 2030.
“We’ve got a problem in this state, and we’ve got to address it,” said Minnesota state Rep. Jeff Brand, a Democrat who sponsored a bill to ban products with intentionally added PFAS by 2025. “We’ve got to do all of these things at once. Every time somebody goes to the store and buys something of this nature, they're inadvertently putting this stuff into their bodies.”
Brand’s bill covers a wide swath of products and would take effect Jan. 1, 2025. Minnesota settled a lawsuit with the 3M Company in 2018, requiring the company to pay $850 million for the alleged effects of its PFAS pollution on drinking water and natural resources.
3M's Cordova chemical plant Dec. 7, 2022, on the Mississippi River upstream from the Quad Cities. The company dumps highly toxic PFAS chemicals into the river.E. Jason Wambsgans, Chicago Tribune
According to Safer States, lawmakers in Alaska, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont are expected to offer proposals against PFAS in products across a multitude of industries.
“If it’s not in products, you don’t have to worry about people being exposed to it,” said Mara Herman, environmental health program manager with the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators, a forum for state lawmakers. “Turning off the tap is an area that a lot of states are focused on.”
Meanwhile, some industry groups are pointing out that PFAS compounds are still essential for products ranging from medical devices to electric vehicles. They argue that only some PFAS compounds have been shown to cause harm, and sweeping laws to ban them could do serious economic damage. Some state laws include exemptions for products with no viable alternative to PFAS.
Some lawmakers are taking a narrower approach. In Washington, state Rep. Sharlett Mena, a Democrat, sponsored a bill that would ban certain chemicals — including PFAS — from cosmetic products.
“We have safer products, so we shouldn’t be putting these harmful things in cosmetics we use every day,” she said. “There's a simple level of trust that when we pick something out at the store, it's vetted and safe to use.”
Washington lawmakers passed a bill last year instructing the state Department of Ecology to issue restrictions on PFAS by 2025. Mena, who works as an employee for the agency, said it was crucial to take on a broad range of harmful chemicals, found disproportionately in cosmetic products marketed to people of color.
Polyfluoroalkyl substances can cause a host of health problems including cancer.
Another 12 states will consider bills related to chemicals in cosmetics, according to Safer States. Lawmakers in 19 states will likely introduce proposals to eliminate harmful chemicals and plastics from packaging, and in 11 states have floated bills related to PFAS in materials that come into contact with food.
Legislators in eight states have proposals to restrict or require disclosure of PFAS in menstrual products, after a class-action lawsuit against period underwear brand Thinx over claims that its products contained the chemicals.
Some other states will consider bans on PFAS in firefighting foam, a notorious cause of contamination that many states have moved to address in recent years. Other bills focus on textiles, hydraulic fracturing fluid, ski wax, recyclables and disclosure requirements.
Lawmakers say product bans are just the start. Some states are working on policies related to testing, cleanup, water quality standards and accountability.
According to Safer States, lawmakers in 11 states are crafting bills related to water quality testing and disclosure, including a proposal in Maine that would require testing of bottled water. At least four state legislatures are expected to look at bills to create PFAS standards for drinking water, groundwater and/or surface water. And 10 states are considering proposals to fund PFAS cleanup efforts.
Another 12 states will consider bills related to chemicals in cosmetics, according to Safer States. Lawmakers in 19 states will likely introduce proposals to eliminate harmful chemicals and plastics from packaging, and in 11 states have floated bills related to PFAS in materials that come into contact with food.
Legislators in eight states have proposals to restrict or require disclosure of PFAS in menstrual products, after a class-action lawsuit against period underwear brand Thinx over claims that its products contained the chemicals.
Some other states will consider bans on PFAS in firefighting foam, a notorious cause of contamination that many states have moved to address in recent years. Other bills focus on textiles, hydraulic fracturing fluid, ski wax, recyclables and disclosure requirements.
Lawmakers say product bans are just the start. Some states are working on policies related to testing, cleanup, water quality standards and accountability.
According to Safer States, lawmakers in 11 states are crafting bills related to water quality testing and disclosure, including a proposal in Maine that would require testing of bottled water. At least four state legislatures are expected to look at bills to create PFAS standards for drinking water, groundwater and/or surface water. And 10 states are considering proposals to fund PFAS cleanup efforts.
No comments:
Post a Comment