By Kate Hughes, PhD2

When experts disagree about PFAS risks to health, what can we do to protect ourselves?

In the last 100 years, humans created many substances that caused pollution on a global scale. Think DDT and other persistent pesticides, or industrial chemicals like PCBs, and wastes like dioxins, which are among the most toxic of man-made substances.

More recently, PFAS has emerged as a pollutant, including here in the Hawkesbury where groundwater is contaminated with fire retardants migrating from RAAF Base Richmond. But the Base is not the only source of PFAS. Fabrics and floor coverings, potting mix, outdoor gear, cosmetics and pizza boxes are among many everyday products that contain some of the thousands of types of PFAS. According to the US EPA, there are 15,000 classes of PFAS but not much is known about the health hazards that most of them might present.   

 So is this lack of data a problem for the community? Yes it is, but toxicity is not the only issue. We also have to understand how we get exposed and whether there is enough exposure to affect our health. 

Recently. I attended two scientific conferences where PFAS was front and centre of many of the presentations. PFAS origins, PFAS chemistry, sources of PFAS pollution, PFAS investigation, PFAS risks to health, PFAS risk to wildlife and PFAS clean up. What stood out was the divergence of expert opinions about risks to health.

One leading Australian regulator stated that the risk was minimal when compared with others, while an American toxicologist described PFAS as multi-system toxicants that can affect a range of organs and systems in the body. Impacts on health accepted in many jurisdictions include cardiovascular problems, reduced birth weight, decreased response to vaccines, endocrine and immune system disruption, and liver and kidney toxicity.

Other talks confirmed in my mind that despite assurances to the contrary, there are serious health risks linked to exposure to PFAS. The critical thing is the amount of exposure needed to cause damage. Again, as with the PFAS toxicity, experts differ in their opinions as do regulators. The variation in drinking water standards in different countries is a good example. The lack of agreement about toxicity and exposure is what is most troubling because risks are calculated using these two parameters. As risk assessors put it: risk = hazard plus exposure.

So while the experts wrestle with the data and hopefully come up with practical recommendations to governments about minimising exposure to PFAS and cleaning up groundwater pollution, what can individuals do to protect their health? Given the many sources of PFAS, we are at a point where exposure happens just by being alive. So what to do? Recognising the many sources of PFAS is a start, and then taking action personally to avoid exposure where possible.

The links below provide reader-friendly information that can help you understand more about PFAS, how exposure happens and what you can do about it.