MN Health Department updates fish consumption guidelines for PFAS
The state Department of Health has updated its guidelines on eating Minnesota fish after PFAS chemicals were found in fish from waters in 10 counties.
Fish with these per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances were found in waterbodies in Anoka, Carver, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington counties in the metro area.
In Greater Minnesota, fish with PFAS were found in some waters in Douglas, Martin, McLeod and St. Louis counties.
PFAS chemicals have been widely used for decades to make products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water. The state Department of Health warns that PFAS may accumulate in a person's body over time and become a health concern.
Find fish consumption guidelines for rivers and lakes statewide at dnr.state.mn.us/lakefind.
Here are updated guidelines for Dakota, Ramsey and Washington county lakes:
Fish Lake, Eagan: Sensitive populations, one serving of crappie per month; others, one serving of crappie per week.
Lemay Lake, Eagan: Sensitive populations, one serving of sunfish per month.
Johanna and Little Johanna lakes, Arden Hills: Sensitive populations, no fish from either lake. General population, one serving per month of any fish.
Gervais Lake, Little Canada: Sensitive populations, no fish. Others, one serving per month.
Keller Lake, Maplewood: Sensitive populations, no fish from this lake. Others, one serving per month.
Josephine and McCarron lakes, Roseville: Sensitive populations, no fish from either lake. Others, one serving per month.
Lake Phalen, St. Paul: Sensitive populations, no fish. Others, one serving per month.
A 6-hour morning routine? First, try a few simple habits to start your day
Whooping cough cases are rising again in the US, challenging public health departments
Worries about flying seem to be taking off. Here's how to cope with in-flight anxiety
Measles misinformation is on the rise — and Americans are hearing it, survey finds
Concern over vaccine misinformation prompts UMN initiative to preserve data
Clear Lake and Mud Lake, Forest Lake: Sensitive populations, no fish from either lake. Others, one serving per month.
Battle Creek and Tanners Lake, Landfall: Sensitive populations, no fish from either water. Others, one serving per month.
'Our fish consumption guidance can help anglers and their families make informed choices about which fish to eat and how often,' said Angela Preimesberger, lead of the state Health Department's fish consumption guidance program. 'Following the guidance enables you to reduce your exposure to contaminants while still enjoying the many benefits of eating fish, which is an important part of a healthy, well-balanced diet.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Millions more to get test results via NHS app, government says
The NHS app will become the default method of communication for millions more patients in England and save the health service £200m over the next three years, the government has said. More test results, screening invitations and appointment reminders will be sent directly to smartphones as part of a £50m investment in the app, in a move away from traditional communication methods such as letters. It is estimated that at least 50 million letters are sent to patients each year. The Department of Health and Social Care said that people who cannot access app messaging - including elderly patients - will receive text messages and then a letter as a last resort, and NHS phone lines would be freed up. The department says 270 million messages will be sent through the NHS app this financial year - an increase of 70 million on the previous year. Push notifications will provide appointment reminders to patients to try to reduce the risk of no attendance - with around eight million missed appointments in elective care missed in 2023/24. Work is also under way to enable users of the app to add appointments to their phone calendars and request help from their local GP surgeries. Figures show that more than 11 million people in the UK log into the NHS app every month, while almost 20 million are opted in to receive healthcare messages from the app. It is hoped the changes will give patients better access to manage their healthcare journey and make informed decisions about their care. NHS app services, which were launched in December 2018, are now used in 87% of hospitals across England. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said further investment in the app would bring the NHS into the digital age so that being a patient was as "convenient as online banking or ordering a takeaway". He added that moving away from paper communication could free up funding for front line services. Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patient's Association, said the upgrade was a "significant step in modernising how patients receive information". The British Medical Association (BMA) has previously warned that a reliance on apps to the NHS to communicate with patients risked alienating patients who don't have access to digital technology. It followed the government's announcement in January that it planned to allow more patients in England to book treatments and appointments through the app. Last month, NHS England announced millions of patients would be able to get "Amazon-style" tracking updates on their prescriptions through the app, to check if their medicines are ready to collect or have been despatched for delivery. New app trial cuts skin cancer referrals by 50% NHS App upgrade to give patients more choice over treatment Patients to get full access to record on NHS App
The Hill
4 hours ago
- The Hill
How thousands of unreviewed ingredients got into our food — and what FDA can do about it
At least 1,000 ingredients in food products on our grocery store shelves have never been checked for safety by the Food and Drug Administration. Dozens have raised serious safety concerns among experts. How did the FDA allow this? The answer can be found in the agency's lax interpretation of a little-known legal designation that lets companies decide for themselves if ingredients in their products are safe. Fortunately, there are steps the agency can take right now to stem the flow of potentially unsafe ingredients into our food supply. Environmental Defense Fund outlined these steps in a letter we recently sent to the agency, but first let's take a closer look at how we got here. 'Generally Recognized as Safe' is a designation Congress created in 1958 to allow commonly used food ingredients to bypass the FDA's pre-market safety review process. It was meant for food substances — such as oils, vinegar, baking soda and common spices — that were widely considered safe due to their long history of everyday use. Since 1958, this status has been coopted to cover a universe of foods that extends far beyond its original intent. According to FDA regulations, a chemical can receive the designation if experts widely agree that scientific evidence shows its use to be safe. But because 'Generally Recognized as Safe' wasn't meant for newer ingredients, Congress allowed ingredients so designated to skip the FDA's premarket approval process — despite requiring similar evidence for other additives. Under the agency's current interpretation, companies can designate the use of a substance as safe and take products with that substance to market without informing the FDA or the public of its decision. While companies may voluntarily submit a notice to FDA offering safety evidence, they are not required to — and often don't. Our organization estimated that manufacturers have notified FDA of fewer than half of the ingredients they market as safe under the 'Generally Recognized' standard. Companies that do bother to submit a notice to the FDA are free to withdraw it at any point and take their product to market, provided they can cite evidence of its safe use. But this 'evidence' is often far from independent. Companies can, and often do, enlist their own employees or handpicked consultants to conduct their safety assessments. The result is a process riddled with conflicts of interest that lets unsafe foods into Americans' homes. We analyzed 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices received by the FDA, obtained via a Freedom of Information request, and found that of the 1,163 submitted by companies between 1997 and April 2024, 192 were later withdrawn, with safety concerns cited in at least a dozen cases. We also identified 31 ingredients that companies have advertised to be recognized as safe, such as in press releases, trade publications and on their own websites (see the Appendix of our letter). However, we were unable to find the scientific evidence required under this standard to demonstrate these ingredients are commonly regarded as safe among experts. This raises red flags that FDA should be taking seriously. Although a comprehensive fix to the 'Generally Recognized' standard will require legislation from Congress, there are significant steps the FDA can take right away to ensure a more rigorous determination process that better protects Americans' health. Starting today, the FDA can use existing authority to remove safe designations from ingredients it deems unsafe and take them off the market. It can also notify manufacturers, importers, distributors and retailers that the substance is no longer recognized as safe. In addition, the FDA can enforce the requirement that companies base safety designations on publicly available data. Although this won't curtail companies' ability to self-declare substances as safe, it will require those who do to be transparent in citing their evidence. Third, the FDA can enforce the requirement that safety assessments consider vital health information such as a substance's dietary sources, potential cancer risks and the cumulative health effects of similar substances. Finally, the FDA can make companies revise and resubmit their data for review when they submit 'Generally Recognized as Safe' notices that fail to comply with the criteria. The 'Generally Recognized as Safe' designation is far from a perfect system, but it can work better if it is interpreted and enforced more comprehensively. If the FDA is serious about protecting public health, it should start by fully exercising the tools already at its disposal. Maria Doa is senior director at the Chemicals Policy at Environmental Defense Fund. Maricel Maffini is an independent consultant focused on human and environmental health and chemical safety.
