Forever chemicals: NSW Health findings defy public concerns
There is 'considerable concern' among communities about exposure to so-called 'forever chemicals' found in everyday products and their potential health risks.
However, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence, experts say the health effects appear to be small and individual blood testing offers no clear medical benefit.
The NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) has released its final report, delivering clear guidance on the health effects of these widely found 'forever chemicals', the value of blood testing, and the best ways to communicate risks to communities.
PFAS have been used since the 1940s in products resistant to heat, stains, grease, and water, but concerns have grown worldwide about their presence in the environment and potential health impacts.
The panel, made up of leading clinical experts across toxicology, oncology, cardiology, public health, and risk communication, evaluated the latest Australian and global research to inform health advice.
While acknowledging the body of research for health effects related to PFAS is 'large and still growing', the panel concluded that the health effects of PFAS 'appear to be small'.
It noted links between PFAS exposure and conditions including high cholesterol, reduced kidney function, immune system changes, hormone alterations, liver enzyme changes, menstruation issues, lower birthweight, pregnancy high blood pressure, and some cancers.
However, the panel stressed the evidence was inconsistent, with 'limited evidence of a dose-response relationship' and difficulty separating PFAS effects from other factors that can affect health, especially in studies with PFAS levels similar to the general population. It also highlighted the influence of bias and confounding factors such as smoking, diet, and age.
A $3.5 million mobile PFAS treatment system installed at the Cascade Water Filtration Plant on the outskirts of Sydney. Picture: Supplied
Addressing widespread public concern about cancer, the panel said it remained confident that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS was low based on the human epidemiological studies and levels of exposure in the Australian population.
The panel noted that while the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified PFOA as 'cancer causing' and PFOS as 'possibly cancer causing', IARC's findings didn't specify safe exposure levels, how much exposure increases risk, or how big that risk might be.
PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate) are specific types of PFAS.
The panel stressed that, despite these hazard classifications, the actual cancer risk from PFAS in Australia was low based on studies and typical exposure levels.
One of the panel's strongest messages is that there is 'no clinical benefit' for an individual to have a blood test for PFAS.
The report stated that PFAS chemicals appeared in more than 95 per cent of people tested, showing widespread exposure from multiple sources.
PFAS contamination in water sources remains a key concern. Picture: NewsWire / Gaye Gerard
Because PFAS are so common, the expert panel said blood tests were hard to interpret and didn't predict health outcomes, so it didn't recommend individual testing.
Although levels have been declining over the past 20 years, high background exposure makes studying health effects challenging. The panel supports ongoing population monitoring to track changes
This stance differs from 2022 guidance by the US National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), which suggested blood testing might guide clinical care.
The NSW panel pointed out limitations in NASEM's approach, including reliance on studies with small effects and possible bias, and noted that US agencies like the CDC and ATSDR have not adopted NASEM's recommendations for individual blood testing.
PFOA, PFOS, and PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonic acid) are the three main PFAS types historically used in aqueous firefighting foams.
The panel also advised against interventions such as phlebotomy or cholesterol-lowering medications to reduce PFAS in the blood, calling their benefits 'uncertain' and warning they 'may cause harm' like anaemia or medication interactions.
Instead, clinicians are urged to focus on 'usual preventative health interventions' to support patients.
Recognising 'genuine concern' in parts of the community about exposure to PFAS and the potential health impacts, the panel stressed that risk communication must be 'tailored to the diverse levels of concern' and continued transparency maintained.
The panel stated that reliable epidemiological studies required 'well characterised' exposures, measured confounders, and sufficiently large populations; conditions 'not currently met in the Blue Mountains population or in other communities in NSW'.
It urged authorities to avoid using currently available human epidemiological studies to derive threshold levels due to the higher risk of bias and confounding.
Instead, it supported continuing Australia's conservative approach of setting exposure limits based on animal studies with safety factors, such as those by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
NSW chief health officer Kerry Chant said updated NSW Health advice provided consumers with guidance on how to reduce PFAS exposure.
'There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously,' Dr Chant said.
'NSW Health will continue to support local clinicians with information for GPs who may be managing patients with concerns about PFAS exposure, including evidence about potential adverse health effects, counselling patients, the utility of blood tests for PFAS and the role of further investigations.'
Originally published as Widespread PFAS exposure, but cancer risk 'low,' experts confirm
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
3 hours ago
- West Australian
Poor effort, one-star: experts pan health rating uptake
Consumers are stilling having to digest complex nutrition tables when shopping as brands thumb their nose at voluntary health star labels. Dietitians and other health experts are demanding health star ratings be made mandatory to correct its dismal uptake. Only one-third of packaged foods on supermarket shelves display the labels, a far cry from the federal government's November target of 70 per cent. People understood the concept of stars and could use it to make better choices, the George Institute for Global Health's Alexandra Jones told reporters on Wednesday. "Their ability to use it has been mostly limited by the fact that it's only on a third of products," she said. Under the rating system, packaged foods can receive ratings from half-a-star to five stars, based on factors including their total energy value, saturated fat, sugar and fruit content. The labels were introduced in 2014 in a joint initiative between the Australian and New Zealand governments. But uptake has fallen well behind schedule. An estimated 36 per cent of products display the rating, about the same amount as four years ago. A reason appears to be producers with low-scoring items choosing to not display the labels. Dr Jones, who leads the George Institute's food governance program, said its data showed higher-scoring brands recorded strong levels of uptake. Australasian food ministers have shown an interest in mandating the labels but experts warned transition periods could mean consumers would be left waiting until 2029 to analyse food details. Mandating the system earlier would help to reduce health costs significantly, public health nutrition associate professor Bridget Kelly said. Dietary risk factors contributing to chronic disease burden already cost the federal taxpayer about $1.2 billion annually. "There's a strong economic argument for rolling this out and for saving government money in the longer term," Dr Kelly, of the University of Wollongong, said. Dietitians Australia chief executive Magriet Raxworthy said the rating system was an important first step in helping consumers make healthy choices. "We can't - in the face of an ever-growing chronic disease landscape - continue to avoid really strong public health measures that can effectively make a change in our food system," she said. While supporting the rating, the Australian Food and Grocery Council said a move towards mandating would require sufficient time to minimise costs, reduce waste and consider the impact on all providers, a spokesperson told AAP on Wednesday. Federal Agriculture Minister Julie Collins and Assistant Health Minister Rebecca White were contacted for comment. The pair are members of the food ministers council that makes decisions about the health star rating system.
Perth Now
3 hours ago
- Perth Now
Poor effort, one-star: experts pan health rating uptake
Consumers are stilling having to digest complex nutrition tables when shopping as brands thumb their nose at voluntary health star labels. Dietitians and other health experts are demanding health star ratings be made mandatory to correct its dismal uptake. Only one-third of packaged foods on supermarket shelves display the labels, a far cry from the federal government's November target of 70 per cent. People understood the concept of stars and could use it to make better choices, the George Institute for Global Health's Alexandra Jones told reporters on Wednesday. "Their ability to use it has been mostly limited by the fact that it's only on a third of products," she said. Under the rating system, packaged foods can receive ratings from half-a-star to five stars, based on factors including their total energy value, saturated fat, sugar and fruit content. The labels were introduced in 2014 in a joint initiative between the Australian and New Zealand governments. But uptake has fallen well behind schedule. An estimated 36 per cent of products display the rating, about the same amount as four years ago. A reason appears to be producers with low-scoring items choosing to not display the labels. Dr Jones, who leads the George Institute's food governance program, said its data showed higher-scoring brands recorded strong levels of uptake. Australasian food ministers have shown an interest in mandating the labels but experts warned transition periods could mean consumers would be left waiting until 2029 to analyse food details. Mandating the system earlier would help to reduce health costs significantly, public health nutrition associate professor Bridget Kelly said. Dietary risk factors contributing to chronic disease burden already cost the federal taxpayer about $1.2 billion annually. "There's a strong economic argument for rolling this out and for saving government money in the longer term," Dr Kelly, of the University of Wollongong, said. Dietitians Australia chief executive Magriet Raxworthy said the rating system was an important first step in helping consumers make healthy choices. "We can't - in the face of an ever-growing chronic disease landscape - continue to avoid really strong public health measures that can effectively make a change in our food system," she said. While supporting the rating, the Australian Food and Grocery Council said a move towards mandating would require sufficient time to minimise costs, reduce waste and consider the impact on all providers, a spokesperson told AAP on Wednesday. Federal Agriculture Minister Julie Collins and Assistant Health Minister Rebecca White were contacted for comment. The pair are members of the food ministers council that makes decisions about the health star rating system.
9 News
8 hours ago
- 9 News
A new drug helped Lee survive breast cancer. Then she was thrown a curveball
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here When Sydney woman Lee Hunt was diagnosed with an aggressive breast cancer back in 2005, she underwent gruelling rounds of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. She also began taking what was a relatively new and promising targeted therapy drug at the time, Herceptin, which has been shown to boost the effects of chemotherapy. Little did Hunt know that the very treatments that likely saved her life would lead to serious health problems down the track. Lee Hunt, pictured with her husband and grandson. (Supplied) Five years after finishing her cancer treatments, she began to notice strange symptoms. "I just started fainting, and feeling very dizzy," Hunt said. Hunt was referred to a haematologist by her GP, on the assumption that it might be her low blood pressure causing the problem. Luckily, the hematologist was aware of growing evidence of breast cancer survivors developing heart problems after taking Herceptin. Hunt was sent to see a cardiologist, who diagnosed her with cardiotoxity, which refers to long-term damage to the heart caused by a medical treatment. Hunt isn't alone, with data showing heart disease related to cancer treatment is emerging as a significant threat to breast cancer survivors. It is now estimated that up to 30 percent of breast cancer patients who undergo chemotherapy will go on to develop potentially life-threatening heart complications as a side effect of associated targeted therapies, immunotherapies or the chemotherapy itself. Lee Hunt, pictured with her husband on a hiking trip in Italy. (Supplied) Australian scientists at the Heart Research Institute hope to have a solution to the problem soon, in the form of a new drug that patients can take while undergoing chemotherapy to prevent heart damage. Professor Julie McMullen leads a team of researchers at the institute who have earmarked two potential drugs which have been showing promise. The drugs are being tested on revolutionary "mini-hearts" created in the lab. The size of a grain of sand, these tiny hearts are made from donated human blood, and have their own heartbeat. Professor Julie McMullen and researcher Dr Clara Liu Chung Ming are pictured the Heart Research Institute's laboratory. (Supplied) The tiny heart model was developed in the laboratory of University of Technology Associate Professor Carmine Gentile in an Australian first. "We can collect blood from breast cancer patients, and then isolate their cells, and with those cells, we can make these little mini hearts," McMullen said. "Then, if we put some cancer drugs onto them, we can see if that impacts how they beat. "We can also test whether one of our protective drugs protects them against any defects in how they beat." The ambitious cardio-oncology project also aims to understand why some patients are more susceptible to cardiotoxicity than others, helping pave the way for more personalised treatment in the future. "We currently have limited knowledge on why cardiotoxicity occurs and which women will be most impacted," McMullen said. "This research has the opportunity to identify women at risk of cardiotoxicity before symptoms are present, so we can develop drugs to protect the heart during and after cancer treatment." national health Breast Cancer Research Australia CONTACT US
