Researchers make shocking discovery about hidden health threat lurking inside wine bottles: 'Very difficult to assess'
Forever chemicals are lurking all around, whether it's in drinking water or common household items such as children's toys. Now, European scientists have discovered them in wine.
Levels of trifluoroacetic acid, a degradation product of PFAS, have risen "alarmingly" in European wines in recent decades, according to researchers with the Pesticide Action Network Europe.
According to The Guardian's summary of the results, the group tested 49 bottles of commercial wine, finding that those produced before 1988 had no traces of TFA but those from after 2010 showed a steep rise in contamination. Levels tended to be lower in organic wines and higher in varieties with the highest amounts of pesticide residue.
Scientists believe the main sources of TFA to be fluorinated refrigerants known as F-gases and PFAS pesticides concentrated in agricultural soil, but there is scant data on formation rates for TFA precursor pesticides.
"This makes it very difficult to assess how much TFA formation and emission potential agricultural soils currently have, as accumulated pesticides can degrade and release TFA over time," study co-author Gabriel Sigmund told the publication. "So even if we completely stopped the use of these pesticides now, we have to expect a further increase in TFA concentrations in our water resources and elsewhere over the next years."
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances are a group of 15,000 compounds used in products including water-repellent clothing and nonstick cookware. They are also prevalent in drinking water supplies across the globe and popular foods such as rice, coffee, eggs, and seafood.
One global study even found that about 31% of groundwater samples and about 16% of surface water samples contained high levels of PFAS despite not being located near any known contamination source.
While researchers are still investigating the health impacts of these chemicals, they have been linked with decreased fertility, increased risk of cancer, and reduced ability of the body's immune system to fight infections, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Experts have not historically been worried by the potential health effects of TFA, but recent studies suggest that it could interfere with reproductive health, according to The Guardian, which added that the German chemical regulator recently proposed classifying the substance as toxic to reproduction.
A number of governments across the globe have taken action to help reduce their citizens' PFAS exposure. For instance, PFOA was banned globally in 2020, and both the European Union and United States have made commitments to take action on PFAS contamination.
Do you worry about having toxic forever chemicals in your home?
Majorly
Sometimes
Not really
I don't know enough about them
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
In the U.S., New Hampshire has banned ski, board, and boat waxes containing these chemicals, and at least 29 states were likely to consider legislation to reduce PFAS exposure in 2025.
It's impossible to avoid PFAS, but there are a few things you can do to limit your exposure. They include ditching nonstick cookware and limiting your purchases of stain- and water-resistant clothing. You can also look for PFAS-free brands.
Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
6 hours ago
- UPI
'Unite for Vets' rally in Washington, D.C., protest overhaul of VA
1 of 8 | Veterans, military families and demonstrators gather on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.,, to participate in a Unite for Veterans Rally to protest the Trump Administration's cuts to staffing and programs at the Department of Veterans Affairs. Photo by Annabelle Gordon/UPI | License Photo June 6 (UPI) -- Several thousand veterans converged on the National Mall on Friday at a rally among 200 events nationwide against a proposed overhaul that includes staffing reduction and some services shifted. The Veterans Administration counters the new proposed budget is higher than last year, processing of claims have sped up and it's easier to get benefits. Veterans, military families and others participated in the Unite for Veterans, Unite for America Rally on the 81st anniversary of D-Day, which was the Allies' amphibious invasion of German-occupied France. The protests, which were organized by a union, took place at 16 state capitol buildings and more than 100 other places across 43 states. "We are coming together to defend the benefits, jobs and dignity that every generation of veterans has earned through sacrifice," Unite for Veterans said on its website. "Veteran jobs, healthcare, and essential VA services are under attack. We will not stand by." Speakers in Washington included Democrats with military backgrounds: Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, former Rep. Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania and California Rep. Derek Tran. There were signs against President Donald Trump, VA Secretary Doug Collins and Elon Musk, the multi-billionaire who ran the Department of Government Efficiency. They said those leaders are betraying the country's promises to troops. "Are you tired of being thanked for our service in the public and stabbed in our back in private?" Army veteran Everett Kelly, the national president of the American Federation of Government Employees, asked the crowd. "For years, politicians on both sides of the aisle have campaigned on their support of veterans, but once they get into office, they cut our benefits, our services. They take every opportunity to privatize our health care." The Trump administration plans to cut 83,000 VA staffers and shift more money from the federal health care system to private-sector clinics. The administration's proposed budget for the VA, released on Friday, slashes spending for "medical services" by $12bn - or nearly 20% - an amount offset by a corresponding 50% boost in funding for veterans seeking healthcare in the private sector. The Department of Veterans Affairs employs approximately 482,000 people, including 500,000 workers at 170 hospitals and 1,200 local clinics in the nation's largest health care system. In all, there are 15.8 million veterans, which represents 6.1% of the civilian population 18 years and older. VA officials said the event was misguided. "Imagine how much better off veterans would be if VA's critics cared as much about fixing the department as they do about protecting its broken bureaucracy," VA press secretary Peter Kasperowicz said in a statement to UPI. "The Biden Administration's VA failed to address nearly all of the department's most serious problems, such as rising health care wait times, growing backlogs of veterans waiting for disability compensation and major issues with survivor benefits." Kasperowicz told UPI disability claims backlog is already down 25% since Trump took office on Jan. 20 after it increased 24% during the Biden administration. He said VA has opened 10 new healthcare clinics around the country, and Trump has proposed a 10% budget increase to $441.3 billion in fiscal year 2026. The administration's proposed budget for the VA reduces spending for "medical services" by $12 billion - or nearly 20% - which is offset by a 50% boost in funding for veterans seeking healthcare in the private sector. Kasperowicz said the "VA is accelerating the deployment of its integrated electronic health record system, after the program was nearly dormant for almost two years under the Biden Administration." The event was modeled after the Bonus Army protests of the 1930s, when veterans who served in World War I gathered in the nation's capital to demand extra pay denied after leaving the service. Irma Westmoreland, a registered nurse working at a VA hospital and the secretary-treasurer of National Nurses United, told the crowd in Washington: "It's important for every person to keep their job, from the engineering staff to the housekeeper to the dietary staff. When cuts are made, the nursing and medical staff will have to pick up all their work that needs to be done."
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Writer shares troubling story about invisible threat impacting neighborhood where she grew up: 'We lived in the shadow'
Growing up, writer Reniqua Allen-Lamphere worried about gun violence. But as an adult, she's realized that the biggest danger to her childhood was invisible — but no less dangerous. Allen-Lamphere shared her story in The Guardian. Growing up in a peaceful community in Englewood, New Jersey, she spent most afternoons playing in a local park, where she would splash in the brook and enjoy the sunshine. But just beyond, the threat lurked. "We lived in the shadow of factories bordering our beloved park," she explained. "Companies such as the LeDoux Corporation, a chemical testing company that had worked on everything from the Manhattan Project to the moon landing, were just steps from the swings." And as more people began to suffer from seemingly unrelated, mysterious health issues — from endometriosis to diabetes — people began to wonder if those factories had something to do with them. One family friend of Allen-Lamphere's shared: "As kids, we always played in the brook and thought it was fun when the water changed colors and stained our hands. … Our neighborhood smelled like rotten eggs every day when we came home from school, which I now know was the smell of sulfur. I can only imagine the toxins we were exposed to." Nowadays, scientists have a better idea of the links between environmental pollution and health. Air pollution is now known to be linked with a plethora of issues, from respiratory illness to dementia, certain cancers, and cardiovascular issues, per the National Institute of Environmental Health. But Allen-Lamphere had personally suffered from severe menstrual pain and endometriosis, and a recent study from Human Rights Watch found that this, too, may have been exacerbated by the pollution. Researchers found links between air pollution and gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, and fibroids. And other common toxins and contaminants, including heavy metals and industrial chemicals, have been linked with infertility and endocrine disruption, leading to pregnancy complications. And unfortunately, people of color are disproportionately affected by this. Black people are 75% more likely to live within close range of industrial facilities, meaning that the air they breathe is, on average, 38% more polluted than the air in majority-white communities, per the Climate Reality Project. Researchers are looking into ways to reduce air pollution while simultaneously contributing to a greener future. From a team looking to convert methane into airplane fuel to another team reverse-engineering real dairy butter out of air-based carbon molecules, the potential solutions are vast and varied. But at its root, reducing air pollution means reducing it at the source and decreasing the amount of toxins and emissions generated in the first place. Both governmental regulations — such as the EPA's recent closing of loopholes on highly polluting steel plants — and initiatives by corporations, like transitioning shipping fleets to clean fuels, will be necessary for this. And as a citizen and a consumer, you can use your voting power and your money to contribute your own power to this effort. Do you worry about air pollution in and around your home? Yes — always Yes — often Yes — sometimes No — never Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Vox
7 hours ago
- Vox
We're secretly winning the war on cancer
is a senior editorial director at Vox overseeing the climate teams and the Unexplainable and The Gray Area podcasts. He is also the editor of Vox's Future Perfect section and writes the Good News newsletter. He worked at Time magazine for 15 years as a foreign correspondent in Asia, a climate writer, and an international editor, and he wrote a book on existential risk. Thousands of people gather on the National Mall in Washington, DC, on September 26, 1998, to demand that the cause, the care, and the cure of cancer be made top research and healthcare priorities in the US. Paul J. Richards/AFP via Getty Images On November 4, 2003, a doctor gave Jon Gluck some of the worst news imaginable: He had cancer — one that later tests would reveal as multiple myeloma, a severe blood and bone marrow cancer. Jon was told he might have as little as 18 months to live. He was 38, a thriving magazine editor in New York with a 7-month-old daughter whose third birthday, he suddenly realized, he might never see. 'The moment after I was told I had cancer, I just said 'no, no, no,'' Jon told me in an interview just last week. 'This cannot be true.' Living in remission The fact that Jon is still here, talking to me in 2025, tells you that things didn't go the way the medical data would have predicted on that November morning. He has lived with his cancer, through waves of remission and recurrence, for more than 20 years, an experience he chronicles with grace and wit in his new book An Exercise in Uncertainty. That 7-month-old daughter is now in college. You could say Jon has beaten the odds, and he's well aware that chance played some role in his survival. ('Did you know that 'Glück' is German for 'luck'?' he writes in the book, noting his good fortune that a random spill on the ice is what sent him to the doctor in the first place, enabling them to catch his cancer early.) Cancer is still a terrible health threat, one that is responsible for 1 in 6 deaths around the world, killing nearly 10 million people a year globally and over 600,000 people a year in the US. But Jon's story and his survival demonstrate something that is too often missed: We've turned the tide in the war against cancer. The age-adjusted death rate in the US for cancer has declined by about a third since 1991, meaning people of a given age have about a third lower risk of dying from cancer than people of the same age more than three decades ago. That adds up to over 4 million fewer cancer deaths over that time period. Thanks to breakthroughs in treatments like autologous stem-cell harvesting and CAR-T therapy — breakthroughs Jon himself benefited from, often just in time — cancer isn't the death sentence it once was. Our World in Data Getting better all the time There's no doubt that just as the rise of smoking in the 20th century led to a major increase in cancer deaths, the equally sharp decline of tobacco use eventually led to a delayed decrease. Smoking is one of the most potent carcinogens in the world, and at the peak in the early 1960s, around 12 cigarettes were being sold per adult per day in the US. Take away the cigarettes and — after a delay of a couple of decades — lung cancer deaths drop in turn along with other non-cancer smoking-related deaths. But as Saloni Dattani wrote in a great piece earlier this year, even before the decline of smoking, death rates from non-lung cancers in the stomach and colon had begun to fall. Just as notably, death rates for childhood cancers — which for obvious reasons are not connected to smoking and tend to be caused by genetic mutations — have fallen significantly as well, declining sixfold since 1950. In the 1960s, for example, only around 10 percent of children diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia survived more than five years. Today it's more than 90 percent. And the five-year survival rate for all cancers has risen from 49 percent in the mid-1970s to 69 percent in 2019. We've made strikes against the toughest of cancers, like Jon's multiple myeloma. Around when Jon was diagnosed, the five-year survival rate was just 34 percent. Today it's as high as 62 percent, and more and more people like Jon are living for decades. 'There has been a revolution in cancer survival,' Jon told me. 'Some illnesses now have far more successful therapies than others, but the gains are real.' Three cancer revolutions The dramatic bend in the curve of cancer deaths didn't happen by accident — it's the compound interest of three revolutions. While anti-smoking policy has been the single biggest lifesaver, other interventions have helped reduce people's cancer risk. One of the biggest successes is the HPV vaccine. A study last year found that death rates of cervical cancer — which can be caused by HPV infections — in US women ages 20–39 had dropped 62 percent from 2012 to 2021, thanks largely to the spread of the vaccine. Other cancers have been linked to infections, and there is strong research indicating that vaccination can have positive effects on reducing cancer incidence. The next revolution is better and earlier screening. It's generally true that the earlier cancer is caught, the better the chances of survival, as Jon's own story shows. According to one study, incidences of late-stage colorectal cancer in Americans over 50 declined by a third between 2000 and 2010 in large part because rates of colonoscopies almost tripled in that same time period. And newer screening methods, often employing AI or using blood-based tests, could make preliminary screening simpler, less invasive and therefore more readily available. If 20th-century screening was about finding physical evidence of something wrong — the lump in the breast — 21st-century screening aims to find cancer before symptoms even arise. Most exciting of all are frontier developments in treating cancer, much of which can be tracked through Jon's own experience. From drugs like lenalidomide and bortezomib in the 2000s, which helped double median myeloma survival, to the spread of monoclonal antibodies, real breakthroughs in treatments have meaningfully extended people's lives — not just by months, but years. Perhaps the most promising development is CAR-T therapy, a form of immunotherapy. Rather than attempting to kill the cancer directly, immunotherapies turn a patient's own T-cells into guided missiles. In a recent study of 97 patients with multiple myeloma, many of whom were facing hospice care, a third of those who received CAR-T therapy had no detectable cancer five years later. It was the kind of result that doctors rarely see. 'CAR-T is mind-blowing — very science-fiction futuristic,' Jon told me. He underwent his own course of treatment with it in mid-2023 and writes that the experience, which put his cancer into a remission he's still in, left him feeling 'physically and metaphysically new.' A welcome uncertainty While there are still more battles to be won in the war on cancer, and there are certain areas — like the rising rates of gastrointestinal cancers among younger people — where the story isn't getting better, the future of cancer treatment is improving. For cancer patients like Jon, that can mean a new challenge — enduring the essential uncertainty that comes with living under a disease that's controllable but which could always come back. But it sure beats the alternative. 'I've come to trust so completely in my doctors and in these new developments,' he said. 'I try to remain cautiously optimistic that my future will be much like the last 20 years.' And that's more than he or anyone else could have hoped for nearly 22 years ago. A version of this story originally appeared in the Good News newsletter. Sign up here!
