Lawmakers, protect us from PFAS
Advertisement
Deirdre Cummings
Legislative director
MassPIRG
Boston
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Medscape
10 minutes ago
- Medscape
PFAS Blood Results: Hype or Hope?
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in numerous industrial and consumer products. Known as 'forever pollutants,' PFAS break down very slowly in water and soil. Consequently, they can enter the food chain and end up in what we eat and drink, making exposure unavoidable. PFAS have drawn increased attention, with public concern pushing policymakers and health experts to respond. However, without clear, science-based recommendations, efforts to act may cause more harm than good. To guide healthcare professionals caring for individuals with potential PFAS exposure, the Inter-Ministerial Conference on Public Health asked the Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE) to issue national recommendations for individual blood screening. Based on the current evidence, KCE experts have advised that routine PFAS screening is not justified and should be limited to scientific studies. They emphasised the need for stronger evidence before broader measures are introduced. PFAS and Health Concerns regarding the potential health risks for PFAS exposure have steadily increased. Studies have linked certain types of PFAS to immune disruption, higher cholesterol levels, and an increased risk for certain cancers. While much remains unknown, such as the influence of exposure duration, dose, specific PFAS compounds, and individual susceptibility, the available evidence supports precautionary steps. In recent years, several countries have imposed limits on PFAS in drinking water or banned the production and use of specific PFAS. Against this backdrop, offering blood tests to individuals suspected of PFAS exposure may seem like a logical measure, particularly if the goal is to provide targeted medical care and reduce potential health risks to the population. However, experts have stated that such an approach raises more questions than answers. Four Key Questions To evaluate whether individual blood testing for PFAS levels in blood at the individual level makes sense, experts at the KCE considered four key questions: Is there solid evidence that PFAS exposure is associated with one or more serious health conditions? Do we know the blood concentration thresholds at which PFAS become a health risk? Are there reliable, accurate, and validated tests, and do we know which specific PFAS compounds should be measured, given the thousands that exist? If high PFAS levels are found, are there proven medical treatments that can reduce health risks? So far, there is no robust evidence to answer the four key questions with a confident 'yes.' Scientists still lack reliable data to show how an individual's risk of developing serious illnesses changes based on PFAS blood levels. There is no standard method for measuring PFAS in the blood, and no clear agreement on which PFAS should be assessed. Currently, there is no solid evidence on how to manage individuals with elevated PFAS levels in the blood. Therefore, the KCE does not recommend blood tests for measuring PFAS levels in individuals. The chances of such a test offering real medical benefits are low, while the risks, including financial costs, anxiety, and a series of potentially unnecessary follow-up tests, are significant. Focus on Research This does not imply that no action should be taken. Conversely, it is crucial to expand our understanding of PFAS, especially when it comes to identifying the health risks and determining the blood levels at which those risks become serious on a population scale. Although the human body gradually eliminates PFAS, this process can take several years. Notably, individual screening differs from biomonitoring. Biomonitoring focuses on tracking exposure and potential health effects across populations to guide effective prevention, medical monitoring, and intervention strategies. The KCE recommends that authorities invest in a well-funded, structured, and coordinated inter-federal scientific research program — ideally in collaboration with other European countries because this is a global problem. In this research context, blood tests can be genuinely valuable, not only for assessing individual health risks but also for building the evidence needed to protect public health.
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Farmers forced to shut down operations after discovering devastating health risk: 'I am hoping this will help us better understand'
Farmers forced to shut down operations after discovering devastating health risk: 'I am hoping this will help us better understand' Maine farmers are worried about their health and that of their families after state regulators discovered that more than 80 farms were contaminated with toxic "forever chemicals." What's happening? Farmers like Adam Nordell, who spoke with News Center Maine, bought a farm in 2014 that he later discovered had previously used PFAS-laced municipal sludge on fields as a fertilizer for years in the 1990s. Now, he has been forced to shut down his organic vegetable and grain operation, and his family members have high levels of PFAS — also known as forever chemicals — in their blood. He told the news site that they're worried about the long-term health impacts of years of exposure to contaminated dust from tilling and plowing as well. Contaminated dust could have also reached other properties, putting others in danger. Meanwhile, Caleb Goossen, a crop production and conservation specialist with the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, is embarking on a study that will look into how soil particles contaminated with forever chemicals can become airborne. The scientists hope that the data they collect will provide better information to Maine farmers affected by contamination as they transition to new livelihoods, such as switching to new crops or installing solar panels. At the same time, they want to keep that contaminated soil intact. "I am hoping this will help us better understand personal exposure risk for anyone working on a farm or near a contaminated farm," Goossen told News Center Maine, adding that they want to look into how much disturbance is related to any new endeavor. "How much does it take for a one-time transition, like a transition to solar panels or something like that?" Why is PFAS concerning? PFAS describes a group of thousands of human-made chemicals that are used in products like non-stick cookware, water-resistant clothing, and firefighting foams. They have been linked to a range of health concerns, including cancer, poor immunity, and reproductive disorders. The conundrum faced by Maine's farmers is part of a larger trend regarding the use of toxic PFAS-laden sludge in fields nationwide. For instance, a third-generation cattle rancher in Michigan, whose property was found to be contaminated with sludge fertilizer in 2020, had a health advisory placed on his beef. A community in Pennsylvania is grappling with PFAS-contaminated water that is likely linked to sewage sludge spread on nearby fields in the 1980s. What's being done about PFAS? In addition to the research being conducted by Goossen's team, some lawmakers are looking at banning the use of sewage sludge on fields. So far, Maine is the only state to have outright banned its application, according to The New York Times. However, lawmakers in other states, such as Texas and Oklahoma, have proposed certain limitations on its use, and one town in New York is inching closer to a ban. Plus, some states have enacted legislation targeting PFAS in some of the everyday products we use. For instance, New Hampshire lawmakers recently banned ski, board, and boat waxes containing these chemicals. Scientists are also working on ways to break these chemicals down before they have a chance to harm humans or the environment. For instance, researchers at the University of Illinois found a way to remove the full spectrum of PFAS from water in a single process, and scientists at the University of Rochester are doing similar work. Editor's note: A previous version of this article misstated that Nordell's farm applied the sludge during the time he owned it. It has been updated to reflect that while the farm in question did use the sludge, it was before he bought the land. 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. Join our free newsletter for good news and useful tips, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet. Solve the daily Crossword
Bloomberg
a day ago
- Bloomberg
Stop Playing Whac-a-Mole With Forever Chemicals
The more you learn about PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — the worse it gets. Though improvements in monitoring and remediation techniques are welcome, what the world needs first and foremost is a universal ban on the chemicals. In fact, we needed it yesterday. There are more than 10,000 PFAS, also known as 'forever chemicals,' and they're used almost everywhere, including in nonstick cookware, waterproof clothing, smartphones, packets of microwave popcorn, hair conditioners, fire-fighting foam, pacemakers, pesticides and dental floss.
