Latest news with #KerryChant
The Guardian
3 days ago
- Health
- The Guardian
‘No clinical benefit' to blood test for Pfas, government says, after ‘forever chemical' found in Blue Mountains
A new report from the government has found there is 'no clinical benefit' to having a blood test for Pfas after the so-called 'forever chemical' was found in local water supplies in the Blue Mountains. The NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas), convened by the state's chief health officer, Dr Kerry Chant, to provide advice on the evidence and guidance related to the potential health effects, published its findings in a final report on Tuesday. All recommendations have been accepted by NSW Health. The panel included science and health experts in cancer, hormone and heart health, epidemiology, pathology, primary care, public health and risk communication. They found, based on the substantial research related to Pfas already undertaken, 'the health effects of Pfas appear to be small'. Sign up: AU Breaking News email Pfas are a class of manufactured chemicals used to make products that resist heat, stains, grease and water – sometimes called 'forever chemicals' as they are difficult to destroy and can remain in soil, groundwater and travel long distances. The report acknowledged that studies have reported an association with some health effects, but noted the findings are inconsistent across different studies with 'limited evidence of a dose-response relationship'. The report also found that 'while clinical testing for Pfas is commercially available, the current scientific evidence indicates that there is there is no clinical benefit for an individual to have a blood test for Pfas'. The authors stated Pfas blood tests were unlikely to guide medical care 'because Pfas will be detected in most people, there are many different Pfas types and blood levels do not predict any current or future health outcomes'. They also warned that Pfas blood test results can cause unnecessary concern and subsequent interventions may cause harms. The report recommended that 'should a health care provider order a blood test for Pfas for a patient, the health care provider should provide clear contextual information about the test and its limitations to the patient, to manage expectations and avoid misinterpretation'. The authors also suggest doctors can support patients concerned with their serum PFAS levels by engaging in usual preventative health interventions, 'as many of the health conditions potentially associated with PFAS are common in the community and are associated with well-established risk factors'. The panel acknowledged their recommendation differs from the National Academies of Science Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), an independent institution in the United States, whose guidance documents recommended individual blood testing and the use of blood levels to inform clinical care. They also noted the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, overseen by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gives advice to clinicians on managing and evaluating Pfas exposure and has not adopted NASEM's recommendations on individual blood testing and health-based screening based on Pfas blood levels. Jon Dee, the convener of the Stop Pfas community group in the Blue Mountains, said 25 people in the area had paid $500 out of pocket to have the blood test for Pfas. Dee said they wanted to see how their blood test compared with the areas of Williamtown, Oakey and Katherine, which were contaminated with Pfas due to firefighting activities on nearby defence force bases. 'If you look at the average blood test level of people in the Blue Mountains, we are two to three times higher than the average Pfas levels in those defence communities that have been compensated by the federal government,' Dee said. Dee said what concerned the community was how many of them with high Pfas levels in their blood have also had health issues that have been known to be associated with Pfas, including cancer. 'It's been totally ignored by NSW Health … We've demanded free blood tests for everyone else.' Dee said the group was taking a class action against the New South Wales government and Sydney Water. 'The findings of this report clearly are more to do with reducing the legal liability of Sydney Water than actually looking after the health of people in the Blue Mountains,' Dee said. The panel acknowledged genuine concern in communities about 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,' 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.'
The Age
4 days ago
- Health
- The Age
Blue Mountains residents could reduce PFAS by donating blood, GPs told
A NSW Health webinar on PFAS for general practitioners painted the forever chemicals as low risk for human health and discussed whether patients should reduce exposure by donating blood, while researchers have found 21 new PFAS types in Sydney tap water, on top of what was previously known. Ahead of its own expert panel reporting on the latest evidence on PFAS and public health, which is expected imminently, Chief Health Officer Dr Kerry Chant hosted an hour-long webinar with six other experts in late July to guide GPs and health practitioners in the Blue Mountains in 'supporting patients with concerns about PFAS exposure'. Professor Nick Buckley, an expert in clinical pharmacology at the University of Sydney and one of six presenters besides Chant in the webinar, said the levels of PFAS exposure in humans were mostly 'tiny traces' and there was limited or no evidence for a strong link with human disease, including cancer and high cholesterol. 'People should not be getting terribly worried about PFAS – I know that's a really hard thing,' Buckley said. 'There's a lot of reasons to think that we're spending a lot of time on something that actually isn't very important for people's health.' The webinar presented a case study of a 60-year-old woman who wanted to know if her high cholesterol was due to her high PFAS levels, measured at 19 nanograms per millilitre of blood for PFOS, 2 ng/ml for PFOA , and 11 ng/ml for PFHxS. If she were in the US, her total PFAS levels of 32 would be above the threshold of 20 set by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) and she would be given further testing and screening. Professor Alison Jones, executive director at the Sunshine Coast Health Institute, told the webinar that she would focus on the patient's cholesterol and cardiovascular risk. 'I would not be doing anything about the PFOS, PFOA or any other thing that starts with P and has F to follow – because of relative risk,' Jones said. PFAS – or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are a family of synthetic chemicals prized for their resistance to heat, grease and water, and used in a wide range of everyday products such as stain-resistant fabrics, cleaning products and firefighting foams. They are often dubbed 'forever chemicals' because they don't break down naturally, and can persist in the environment and human body for decades. NASEM has conducted a systematic review of the evidence and found that certain PFAS, specifically PFOA, are carcinogenic to humans. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA as carcinogenic to humans and PFOS as possibly carcinogenic. However, Buckley said the NASEM guidelines on sensible screening for an individual were 'pretty terrible' and amounted to a recommendation that patients should have cholesterol testing, which was already routine. He noted that the 'strongest conclusions' that PFAS was carcinogenic came from IARC, but said this was 'just some subgroup of the WHO', not WHO itself.
