Latest news with #PFOS
Boston Globe
06-07-2025
- Health
- Boston Globe
Trump's EPA has terminated over $15 million in funding for 'forever chemicals' research
In the onslaught of legal action and activism that followed, the EPA during President Donald Trump's first term took an assertive stance, vowing to combat the spread of PFAS nationwide. Advertisement In its big-picture By the time Trump was sworn in for his second term, many of the plan's suggestions had been put in place. After his first administration said Advertisement But now, the second Trump administration is pulling back. The EPA said in May that it will These EPA decisions under Trump are part of a slew of delays and course changes to PFAS policies that had been supported in his first term. Even though his earlier EPA pursued a measure that would help hold polluters accountable for cleaning up PFAS, the EPA of his second term has not yet committed to it. The agency also slowed down a process for finding out how industries have used the chemicals, a step prompted by a law signed by Trump in 2019. At the same time, the EPA is hampering its ability to research pollutants — the kind of research that made it possible for its own scientists to investigate GenX. As the Trump administration seeks severe reductions in the EPA's budget, the agency has terminated grants for PFAS studies and paralyzed its scientists with spending restrictions. Pointing to 'If anything,' the agency added, 'the Trump administration's historic PFAS plan in 2019 laid the groundwork for the first steps to comprehensively address this contamination across media and we will continue to do so this term.' Advertisement In public appearances, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has pushed back on the suggestion that his agency weakened the drinking water limits on GenX and similar compounds. Future regulations imposed by his agency, he said, could be more or less stringent. 'What we want to do is follow the science, period,' he has said. That sentiment perplexes scientists and environmental advocates, who say there is already persuasive evidence on the dangers of these chemicals that linger in the environment. Scientists and advocates also said it's unclear what it means for the EPA to follow the science while diminishing its own ability to conduct research. 'I don't understand why we would want to hamstring the agency that is designed to make sure we have clean air and clean water,' said Jamie DeWitt, a toxicologist in Oregon who worked with other scientists on Cape Fear River research. 'I don't understand it.' Delays, Confusion Over PFAS Favored for their nonstick and liquid-resistant qualities, synthetic PFAS chemicals are widely used in products like raincoats, cookware and fast food wrappers. Advertisement The chemicals persist in soil and water too, making them complicated and costly to clean up, leading to a yearslong push to get such sites covered by the EPA's Superfund program, which is designed to handle toxic swaths of land. During the first Trump administration, the EPA said it was taking steps toward designating the two legacy compounds, PFOA and PFOS, as 'hazardous substances' under the Superfund program. Its liability provisions would help hold polluters responsible for the cost of cleaning up. Moving forward with this designation process was a priority, according to the PFAS plan from Trump's first term. Zeldin's EPA The designation became official under Biden. But business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and organizations representing the construction, recycling and chemical industries, sued. Project 2025, The Heritage Foundation's playbook for the new administration, also questioned it. Zeldin has said repeatedly that he wants to hold polluters accountable for PFAS, but his EPA requested three delays in the court case challenging the Superfund designation that helps make it possible. The agency said in a recent motion it needed the latest pause because new leadership is still reviewing the issues and evaluating the designation in context of its 'comprehensive strategy to address PFOA and PFOS.' The EPA also Advertisement Businesses were supposed to start reporting this month. But in a May 2 letter, a coalition of chemical companies When the EPA delayed the rule less than two weeks later, it said it needed time to prepare for data collection and to consider changes to aspects of the rule. In an email to ProPublica, the agency said it will address PFAS in many ways. Its approach, the agency said, is to give more time for compliance and to work with water systems to reduce PFAS exposure as quickly as feasible, 'rather than issue violations and collect fees that don't benefit public health.' The court expects an update from the EPA in the Superfund designation case by Wednesday, and in the legal challenges to the drinking water standards by July 21. The EPA could continue defending the rules. It could ask the court for permission to reverse its position or to send the rules back to the agency for reconsideration. Or it could also ask for further pauses. 'It's just a big unanswered question whether this administration and this EPA is going to be serious about enforcing anything,' said Robert Sussman, a former EPA official from the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. As a lawyer, he now represents environmental groups that filed an amicus brief in PFAS cases. Advertisement Back in North Carolina, problems caused by the chemicals continue to play out. A consent order between the state and Chemours required the manufacturer to drastically reduce the release of GenX and other PFAS into the environment. (The chemicals commonly called GenX refer to HFPO-DA and its ammonium salt, which are involved in the GenX processing aid technology owned by Chemours.) Chemours told ProPublica that it invested more than $400 million to remediate and reduce PFAS emissions. It also noted that there are hundreds of PFAS users in North Carolina, 'as evidenced by PFAS seen upstream and hundreds of miles away' from its Fayetteville plant 'that cannot be traced back to the site.' PFAS-riddled sea foam continues to wash up on the coastal beaches. Chemours and water utilities, meanwhile, are battling in court about who should cover the cost of upgrades to remove the chemicals from drinking water. Community forums about PFAS draw triple-digit crowds, even when they're held on a weeknight, said Emily Donovan, co-founder of the volunteer group Clean Cape Fear, which has intervened in federal litigation. In the fast-growing region, new residents are just learning about the chemicals, she said, and they're angry. 'I feel like we're walking backwards,' Donovan said. Pulling back from the drinking water standards, in particular, is 'disrespectful to this community.' 'It's one thing to say you're going to focus on PFAS,' she added. 'It's another thing to never let it cross the finish line and become any meaningful regulation.' Research Under Fire The EPA of Trump's first term didn't just call for more regulation of PFAS, it also stressed the importance of better understanding the forever chemicals through research and testing. In a Zeldin, too, has boasted about advancing PFAS research in an At about the same time, though, the agency terminated a host of congressionally appropriated grants for PFAS research, including over $15 million for Scientists at Michigan State University, for example, were investigating how PFAS interacts with water, soil, crops, livestock and biosolids, which are used for fertilizer. They timed their latest study to this year's growing season, hired staff and partnered with a farm. Then the EPA canceled two grants. In virtually identical letters, the agency said that each grant 'no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities. The objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.' The contrast between the agency's words and actions raises questions about the process behind its decisions, said Cheryl Murphy, head of Michigan State's Center for PFAS Research and co-lead of one of the projects. 'If you halt it right now,' she said, 'what we're doing is we're undermining our ability to translate the science that we're developing into some policy and guidance to help people minimize their exposure to PFAS.' At least some of the researchers are appealing the terminations. About a month after PFAS grants to research teams in Maine and Virginia were terminated for not being aligned with agency priorities, the agency reinstated them. The EPA told ProPublica that 'there will be more updates on research-related grants in the future.' Even if the Michigan State grants are reinstated, there could be lasting consequences, said Hui Li, the soil scientist who led both projects. 'We will miss the season for this year,' he said in an email, 'and could lose the livestock on the farm for the research.' Federal researchers are also in limbo. Uncertainty, lost capacity and spending restrictions have stunted the work at an EPA lab in Duluth, Minnesota, that investigates PFAS and other potential hazards, according to several sources connected to it. As one source who works at the lab put it, 'We don't know how much longer we will be operating as is.' The EPA told ProPublica that it's 'continuing to invest in research and labs, including Duluth, to advance the mission of protecting human health and the environment.' Meanwhile, the agency is asking Congress to eliminate more than half of its own budget. That includes massive staffing cuts, and it would slash nearly all the money for two major programs that help states fund water and wastewater infrastructure. One dates back to President Ronald Reagan's administration. The other was The EPA lost 727 employees in voluntary separations between Jan. 1 and late June, according to numbers the agency provided to ProPublica. It said it received more than 2,600 applications for the second round of deferred resignations and voluntary early retirements. 'These are really technical, difficult jobs,' said Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group. 'And the EPA, by encouraging so many employees to leave, is also losing a lot of institutional knowledge and a lot of technical expertise.' The shake-up also worries DeWitt, who was one of the scientists who helped investigate the Cape Fear River contamination and who has served on an EPA science advisory board. Her voice shook as she reflected on the EPA's workforce, 'some of the finest scientists I know,' and what their loss means for public well-being. 'Taking away this talent from our federal sector,' she said, will have 'profound effects on the agency's ability to protect people in the United States from hazardous chemicals in air, in water, in soil and potentially in food.'
Time of India
04-07-2025
- Health
- Time of India
Is it safe to drink rainwater? Scientists reveal the answer
As the monsoon season arrives in India, people across the country begin to store, use, or simply enjoy the rain and the refreshing feel of rainwater. Remember your childhood, standing in the rain with arms wide open, face tilted to the sky, mouth open to catch those cool drops straight from the clouds? It felt pure and magical. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now But is rainwater really safe to drink today? Environmental scientists say the answer is more complicated than it seems. While rainwater may look clean, it can contain pollutants like dust, ash, heavy metals from rooftops, or more concerning, invisible 'forever chemicals' that never break down and now appear even in the most remote rainwater samples worldwide. What are PFAS and why are they a concern? According to Dr. Ian Cousins, an environmental scientist at Stockholm University, PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of synthetic chemicals that have been used for decades in firefighting foams, non-stick cookware, food packaging, and water-repellent fabrics. These chemicals are known as 'forever chemicals' because they do not degrade naturally and persist in the environment for generations. In a global study co-authored by Cousins, Dr. Bo Sha, Dr. Jana H. Johansson, Dr. Martin Scheringer, and Dr. Matthew Salter, PFAS were detected in rainwater from regions as isolated as the Tibetan Plateau and Antarctica. Their findings indicate that due to widespread atmospheric contamination, rainwater across the planet may now contain PFAS levels that exceed safety guidelines set by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Health risks linked to PFAS exposure Only four PFAS compounds—PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, and PFNA—have been extensively studied, yet these alone are linked to serious health risks. Dr. Cousins and his team note that elevated exposure to these chemicals has been associated with increased risks of thyroid disease, liver enlargement, high cholesterol, immune suppression, pregnancy complications, and even certain cancers. One particularly concerning effect is the reduced effectiveness of vaccines in children, a risk that prompted the EPA to drastically lower its recommended PFAS limits for drinking water. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now While the overall levels of these chemicals in the environment have not increased in recent years, their extreme stability means that they have remained above health advisory thresholds since the early 2000s and are unlikely to decline significantly for decades. What can be done and is rainwater still drinkable? When asked whether rainwater is safe to drink, Dr. Cousins and colleagues expressed caution. 'We are uncertain,' they wrote. While extremely low PFAS levels (in picograms or nanograms per liter) may not cause noticeable harm immediately, the cumulative risks remain. Current health advisories are based on precautionary principles designed to protect public health even in worst-case exposure scenarios. Although technologies exist to filter PFAS from water, removing them to levels below current safety standards is difficult and expensive. There is no way to eliminate PFAS from food, and they are present even in indoor dust. As Dr. Cousins emphasizes, 'Humans will have to live with some level of PFAS exposure,' but unnecessary uses must be restricted. The team concludes that all PFAS uses should be critically evaluated for essentiality. 'PFAS have no place in the natural environment,' said Dr. Martin Scheringer, co-author of the study, adding that policy must shift toward minimizing their spread and use wherever possible. The final takeaway So, is it safe to drink rainwater during this monsoon? Not without proper treatment. While it may feel nostalgic and pure, the reality is that even rain falling in remote corners of the world can carry microscopic chemical residues that could pose risks over time. Experts like Dr. Ian Cousins and his colleagues urge caution and suggest relying on filtered or regulated water sources for drinking, while pushing for global reforms in PFAS usage. The rain still brings joy but when it comes to your drinking water, science says it's better to be safe than sorry.
Yahoo
03-07-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Could UK Tap Water's 'Forever Chemicals' Lead To France-Style Bans?
France has seen its biggest ever ban on tap water in Saint-Louis, near the Swiss city of Basel. Local authorities put letters through approximately 60,000 mailboxes urging the public to ensure that kids under two, pregnant and breastfeeding people, and the immunocompromised don't drink tap water. This was because the levels of PFAs, also known as 'forever chemicals,' had been raised to four times the acceptable limit by firefighting foam used in a local airport since the '60s. PFAS stand for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, chemicals which take an extremely long time to break down. They're present in everything from skincare products to frying pans and include 5,000+ substances. Saint-Louis is one of thousands of EU water sources suspected to be contaminated by too many PFAs, the overconsumption of which may be linked to increased cancer risk, reproductive issues, compromised immune systems, and even heightened cholesterol levels. Given that 'from 2018 to 2022, 51-60% of rivers, 11-35% of lakes and 47-100% of transitional and coastal waters exceeded the annual average environmental quality standards (EQS) for PFOS [a specific PFAS]' in Europe, we thought we'd ask what that might mean for the UK. Speaking to HuffPost UK, Professor Sir Colin Berry, Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the Queen Mary University of London, offered some reassurance. 'It is worth emphasising the reason that these compounds [PFAS] are persistent is that they are non-reactive; the chances that the very small amounts found will have detectable adverse effect if ingested is vanishingly small,' the former President of the European Society of Pathology told us. 'The levels are set as precautionary values and are more to do with control of contamination than concern about health,' he added. The Drinking Water Inspectorate says that, 'Based on our current knowledge, the low levels of PFAS detected in some untreated water abstracted for public drinking water supplies has no acute or immediate impact on human health.' Still, a 2023 evaluation by the World Health Organisation concluded that teo PFAS (perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)) can be considered carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic, respectively. PFOAs are group 1 carcinogens per the WHO's cancer research sector, IARC, along with processed meat, tobacco, and asbestos. PPOS are group 2B 'possible' carcinogens, along with aloe vera, coconut oil, and pickled vegetables. Doctors have previously criticised the IARC cancer grouping system for not considering 'the level of risk relative to the dosage,' which they think may have led to the body grouping things like salted fish in the same group 1 carcinogen class as plutonium. Whatever the disputed effects of going over the EU's limit of PFAS may be, Dr Shubhi Sharma, a Scientific Research Assistant at CHEM Trust, says parts of the UK certainly do that. 'PFAS have already been found in almost 200 untreated drinking water samples in England and the levels in these samples were found to be above the Drinking Water Inspectorate's PFAS threshold guidance for England and Wales, which is a 'wholesomeness' value of 0.1 ug/l for 48 PFAS,' she told us. A Ministry of Defence spokesperson told The Guardian in response to those claims that 'Ensuring the safety of our staff, personnel and the public is our number one priority and that's why we are complying with the relevant legislation and regulations. 'As understanding of these chemicals has changed, we have responded accordingly. We have prioritised a programme of investigation of our sites, which has been agreed with the Environment Agency.' The CHEM Trust researcher said England and Wales 'have no statutory limits on PFAS in drinking water – the water companies just need to test for 48 PFAS, but this is a non-binding guidance. Scotland, on the other hand, adheres to EU standards, which are far stricter than the UK guidelines.' Member states of the EU, she added, will need to comply with the Drinking Water Directive thresholds by 12th January 2026. 'People in [the] UK have different threats of exposure to PFAS in their drinking water depending on whether they live in Scotland or England/Wales,' Dr Sharma added. Dr Sharma, who believes PFAS carry health risks and are a 'huge concern,' says that 'the UK needs to regulate PFAS as a group and at the very source' (mainly industrial sites). But seeing as England and Wales have no statutory limit on PFAS and Scotland sticks to the EU-recommended level, a tap water ban based on the slow-degrading chemicals seems unlikely any time soon. The Next Thing To Ruin The UK's Water Supply Isn't What You Think Tories Shamed Over UK's Polluted Water Supply: 'They Turned A Blind Eye' I've Dreaded Every Heatwave Since 2019 – And It's Only Going To Get Worse
LeMonde
22-06-2025
- Health
- LeMonde
Fish, offal, cereal and eggs are also contaminated by forever chemicals
According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), food is the main route of exposure to forever chemicals for the public. Yet, unlike drinking water, there remains a significant lack of data on the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in foodstuffs. A report published on Thursday, June 19, by the advocacy group Future Generations addresses this gap. It reveals near-universal contamination throughout the food chain and found that current regulations are inadequate, allowing PFAS concentrations in food that are far too high compared to risk thresholds established by the EFSA. Other research carried out by the Austrian advocacy group Global 2000 and the Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) indicated that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The most widespread forever chemical − trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) − is not being monitored, despite strong suspicions of its reproductive toxicity and its presence in commonly consumed foods such as bread, pasta and breakfast cereal − sometimes at astonishing levels. Currently, only three substances (PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS) from the large PFAS family are subject to mandatory monitoring in food (compared to 20 in drinking water), and four (including PFNA) are subject to regulatory limits. Even then, these limits apply only to a small number of foodstuffs that do not cover the entire diet: meat, fish, shellfish, mollusks and eggs. For fruit, vegetables, cereal or dairy products, there are no regulatory limits. More surprisingly, the advocacy group noted, "there are also no regulatory limits concerning food for infants and young children, who are particularly vulnerable."
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The chemicals in your drinking water that are harming your health (and how to avoid them)
Forever chemicals are part and parcel of modern life. Whether you're pulling on a waterproof jacket, grabbing a coffee in a paper cup, or unwrapping a takeaway, chances are your body's absorbing them. There's more than 10,000 of these synthetic compounds today, which are prized for their resistance to water, oil and stains. That makes them incredibly useful, but nearly impossible to avoid. First developed in the 1930s in both Germany and the United States, PFAS became widely commercialised in the 1950s when US company DuPont used PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) to create Teflon, the world's first non-stick coating. Their chemical structure – bonding carbon with fluorine – makes them nearly impossible to break down. As a result, they can persist in the environment for hundreds or even thousands of years, earning them the nickname 'forever chemicals'. This persistence means PFAS are now ubiquitous. They are found in soil, air, drinking water, rainwater, and even the blood of nearly every person on Earth. The use of the most dangerous PFAS chemicals, PFOA and PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), were phased out in the United States, the UK and many other countries beginning in the early 2000s, after studies linked them to cancer, immune system suppression, thyroid disease, liver damage, developmental delays in children, and fertility issues. However, although they are not used in the manufacture of new products in the UK, those toxic, banned chemicals will never disappear from our environment. They exist in the water we drink and the soil that grows our food. More worrying is that these banned substances have been replaced by newer, supposedly less harmful, forever chemicals. These haven't been shown to cause health problems yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be worried. Dr Dave Megson, a chemistry and environmental forensics scientist at Manchester Metropolitan University, says: 'I'm still concerned about them. We've banned the two chemicals we know the most about, but the replacement chemicals are very similar. They're just less understood and their toxicity hasn't been fully confirmed. That seems to be the loophole because we haven't proven they're harmful yet, they're still allowed.' He thinks they will be banned in time and 'we're just waiting for the toxicological data to catch up. We need time to prove how harmful these new PFAS are.' Ian Cousins, professor of environmental organic chemistry at Stockholm University, thinks that most uses are unnecessary. 'We should not be using them because they're so persistent, and there are alternatives on the market.' Last month, the UK's Environmental Audit Committee launched a formal inquiry into PFAS contamination and regulation across the UK. They're concerned that the evidence showing they harm human health is not being taken seriously enough. The UK is lagging behind most other developing countries when it comes to regulating forever chemicals. The EU is moving forward with a comprehensive proposal to restrict the manufacture, use and marketing of approximately 10,000 PFAS. Currently, the UK has banned several specific PFAS chemicals found in firefighting foams, such as Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS), banned over a decade ago, and Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA), which will be banned from July this year. It's no surprise, given the UK's lack of regulation that a global study assessing blood serums containing PFAS, found UK concentrations to be amongst some of the highest in the world. But while we are waiting for the UK government to catch up with the rest of the world, there are measures that worried consumers can take to reduce their exposure. Despite water companies having to dilute contaminated water with purer water or use an alternative source, PFAS are still getting into drinking water. PFAS were found in more than half of samples of Scottish drinking water taken in 2023. PFAS have also been found in both bottled and tap water samples in the UK. The Environment Agency has identified over 10,000 sites across England as high-risk for PFAS contamination, many associated with firefighting foam which contained now banned PFAS. Prof Cousins says that people should be especially concerned if they live near an industrial or military site that may have used firefighting foam in the past. 'That is a particularly nasty PFAS and you don't want to be exposed to it. So if you live in that [kind of] area I would consider getting my water tested and install a water filter.' Several UK sites are under investigation for PFAS contamination from firefighting foam. At AGC Chemicals in Thornton-Cleveleys, Lancashire, over 100 tonnes of PFOA (now a banned chemical) were released between 1950 and 2012, prompting soil and water testing. In Norfolk, RAF Marham is being examined after PFAS were found in local drinking water, with bottled water now being supplied to residents. Duxford's former RAF base, now an Imperial War Museum site, is also being monitored due to potential contamination of nearby aquifers. The most effective water filters for removing PFAS use reverse osmosis, activated carbon, or ion exchange. Reverse osmosis systems can remove up to ninety-nine per cent of PFAS, while activated carbon filters also work well if the filters are changed regularly. Good examples include Berkey Water Filters, which use carbon elements tested for PFAS removal, and the Aquasana OptimH2O, which combines reverse osmosis and carbon filtration. Dr Megson offers some reassurance. 'The UK has some of the most tested and regulated water in the world. In known hotspots water is regularly blended and monitored to stay within guidelines. Carpets might be cosy and warm underfoot but increasingly researchers are raising concerns over them as a hidden source of PFAS. They are often added to carpets to make them stain and water resistant. Walking on them creates dust that can reach breathing height. 'People think of contamination as something outside, but indoor dust is significant. For example, carpets treated with Scotchgard in the 1990s are now breaking down releasing PFAS as the fibres degrade,' says Dr Megson. A recent study led by Dr Scott Bartell at the University of California, Irvine, found that people living with carpets consistently showed higher blood PFAS levels than those with bare floors. His conclusion? Carpets are a significant and underestimated source of exposure. Oliver Jones, professor of chemistry, at RMIT University in Melbourne says that 'if you really want to reduce exposure, you should start by looking at where the largest sources of PFAS to humans are. Evidence suggests it's dust in the air.' He recommends getting an air filter. While a standard mechanical air filter, known as an HEPA filter can trap particulate-bound PFAS (like those stuck to dust), a better choice would be an activated carbon air filter. The critical difference: they can remove gaseous PFAS from the air. For broader protection, a combination of both HEPA and activated carbon filtration is ideal. Activated carbon works by adsorbing chemicals at a molecular level, capturing many volatile PFAS compounds that might otherwise circulate freely in your home. Not all air purifiers are created equal, though. Look for units with large activated carbon beds and a high Clean Air Delivery Rate (CADR). Vacuum with a HEPA filter: a high-efficiency vacuum can reduce PFAS-laden dust. Models like Dyson's Gen5outsize (£1,000) or the more affordable Shark Detect and Empty (£350) both offer strong filtration, though only some include activated carbon filters to trap gases. Parchment paper, wax paper and foil are regular fixtures in most kitchens. They are the kind of supplies people use without thinking twice. But research has found that some of these everyday items may be coated with PFAS. When exposed to high temperatures, especially in ovens or on grills, PFAS can break down and potentially seep into the food. That means cooking something as simple as vegetables in foil, or lining a tray with treated paper, could become a source of unwanted chemical exposure over time. 'There are lots of kitchen items with PFAS, including baking paper, non-stick pans and even dishwasher tablets,', says Dr Megson. 'Not all of them transfer large amounts to your food, but some still do. Some parchment paper contains PFAS. But if you're baking a cake once a month, the exposure is minimal compared to what you get from your diet or potentially your water.' 'It's death by a thousand paper cuts. It might be small amounts, but it all adds up in burger wrappers, coffee cups, dishwasher tablets, makeup and workout clothes,' he says. A simple solution that creates a similar non-stick effect is to coat your pan with butter and cover it with flour. The following retailers provide some PFAS-free alternatives: Green Safe Products, Clondakin Group, Nordic Paper. PFAS are also found in a lot of athletic clothing including popular Lycra leggings. They are added to fabrics to make them water and stain resistant, or to help wick sweat away from the skin, which is common in performance gear. A 2022 investigation by Toxic Free Future found that more than 70 per cent of sportswear tested contained PFAS, including items from well-known brands. Researchers at Birmingham University also found that sweating makes it easier for the body to absorb these chemicals into the body. There are plenty of PFAS-free options. Look for those made from natural fabrics, such as organic cotton, hemp and bamboo. These selections represent a range of PFAS-free sportswear options from reputable brands: Patagonia has been working to eliminate PFAS from its products, and offers items like the Cap Cool Daily Shirt. Sweaty Betty's Ultimate Studio Twin Strap Bra Vest is designed without PFAS. PFAS can be used to waterproof outdoor clothing. The performance clothing company Rab has been actively working to eliminate PFAS from its products. As of autumn/winter 2024, approximately 95 per cent of Rab's fabrics with durable water repellent (DWR) treatments are PFAS-free. Patagonia Torrentshell 3L rain jacket and North Face's Resolve 2 jacket are PFAS- free. 'I think the cosmetics industry has got away [with it] pretty lightly at the moment, whereas the clothing industry has had to do quite a lot,' said Dr Megson. He is worried about gym users applying make-up. 'I'd expect people to get more exposure through make-up than clothes. A lot of people now wear make-up in the gym because they want to look good while exercising. So they go for the really tough 72-hour formulas because they don't want it to run. The reason it stays on so well is because it's packed with PFAS, which resist sweat and water.' Many everyday cosmetics like nail polish, lipstick, mascara, and foundation contain chemicals PFAS, added because they help make products more durable, waterproof, and longer-lasting. Natural and organic beauty products often avoid these synthetic chemicals altogether. Several UK brands now offer PFAS-free nail varnishes and polishes that focus on safer, non-toxic ingredients. Popular options include Zoya, known for formulas free from harmful chemicals like PFAS and Piggy Paint, which provides non-toxic, water-based polishes safe for sensitive skin. Axiology offers clean beauty products with PFAS-free nail polishes. 'Fast food packaging is another unnecessary use of PFAS. It's done purely for convenience. It's there to stop grease from soaking through. We don't want a greasy stain on our shorts or trousers when we're eating a burger. But in warm, moist conditions, like with a wrapped burger, more chemicals can transfer. So it's an extra load we really don't need,' says Dr Megson. 'Pizza boxes are some of the worst and most unnecessary use of PFAS,' says Prof Cousins. 'Instead of using chemicals to stop the fats from the pizza escaping the box, they should make thicker boxes.' Some PFAS-free alternatives include uncoated paper and cardboard, which are suitable for dry foods like sandwiches and pastries and can be recycled or composted. Bioplastic-coated paper, made with plant-based polylactic acid (PLA), offers compostable options. Containers made from sugarcane byproducts, known as bagasse, are naturally grease- and water-resistant, microwave-safe, and home compostable, making them ideal for takeaway plates and containers. However, the raised awareness about PFAS is having an impact on businesses. McDonald's has committed to eliminating them from its food packaging globally by 2025. While US Tex-Mex chain Chipotle committed to eliminating PFAS from all packaging by 2024 and has made significant progress. To keep hot drinks from soaking through paper cups, they are lined with a thin layer of plastic-like material. 'These cups contain PFAS,' said Prof Cousins. 'Remember though that not all PFAS are the same. They have short chains unlike the older ones that were banned. These substances have not so far been linked to human health effects. However, they are persistent and will accumulate in the environment, which is not a good thing. Toxicity is about dose, so if they continue to accumulate, they are likely to be a problem in the future.' If you're concerned, a simple way to steer clear is to carry a reusable cup made from materials like stainless steel, glass or silicone. Both Dr Megson and Prof Cousins says that we absorb a lot of PFAS through the food chain. 'I wouldn't eat any fish or shellfish from Morecambe Bay. I wouldn't touch the estuary because it is terribly contaminated, says Prof Cousins. I'd be suspicious of eggs reared at home or in these areas, and home-grown vegetables if you live near a hot spot. I would avoid freshwater fish from polluted rivers.' Strawberries sold in the UK have been found to contain high levels of pesticide residues that include PFAS. A 2022 review of government testing data, analysed by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), found that nearly all of the strawberry samples, 95 per cent, contained traces of PFAS-related pesticides. Strawberries appear to be particularly vulnerable due to the types of pesticides used, and the fruit's porous surface. Other fruits and vegetables, including grapes, spinach, cherries, and tomatoes were also found to carry PFAS residues. 'We get a lot of our PFAS in our bodies from our diet,' says Dr Megson. Wastewater sludge or slurry which is used as a fertiliser is packed full of PFAS. Animals grazing on contaminated land or drinking polluted water can accumulate PFAS in their tissues, which then passes up to the food chain to humans. Going organic is the best solution to avoid PFAS. Washing fruit and vegetables thoroughly to try to remove as much of them as possible. Recent research has shown that donating blood or plasma and taking specific medications can help reduce PFAS levels in the body. A 2022 Australian study found that regular blood donations lowered PFAS concentrations by about 10 per cent, while plasma donations, which remove more of the protein-bound PFAS, reduced levels by up to 30 per cent over a year. Additionally, clinical trials are exploring the use of cholestyramine, used to lower cholesterol. This medication binds to PFAS in the digestive system, helping eliminate them through the liver. While these methods don't eliminate PFAS entirely, they offer promising ways to reduce the body's chemical burden, especially for those with high exposure. PFAS and microplastics can be linked. Microplastics are tiny plastic particles (less than 5mm) that result from the breakdown of larger plastic waste or are manufactured at that size, commonly polluting oceans, soil, and even food. PFAS can bind to or coat microplastics in the environment, effectively hitching a ride on these tiny plastic particles. This combination may increase the potential for PFAS to enter the food chain, as microplastics are ingested by marine life and other organisms. So while they are chemically distinct, they can interact and amplify each other's environmental impact. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
