Guardian Gets It Wrong: PFAS Risk Assessments Need to Incorporate International Input
Michael Dourson, Ph.D., DABT, FATS, FSRA
Director of Science at Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA)
1.?Misrepresentation of Research Motives
?
The recent article from The Guardian suggests that the scientific efforts led by?Dr.?Dourson?of Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment (TERA) and his international colleagues are part of a coordinated legal strategy designed to undermine US EPA regulations for PFAS. This claim is misleading and overlooks the fact that science thrives on diverse perspectives, rigorous debate, and peer-reviewed research.?TERA's work is rooted in decades of toxicological experience?in PFAS. Indeed, Dr. Dourson along with many other authors have won two “Best Paper of the Year” awards regarding unfunded work on PFAS chemicals, given by the Society of Toxicology.? However, his?involvement with?this international community does not negate the scientific validity of this research. TERA collaborates with government, industry, and academic institutions, and all research undergoes rigorous peer review.
?
2.?Bias Accusations and the Independence of Tera
The article claims that TERA is a “one-stop shop” for industry-friendly research, dismissing the organization’s longstanding commitment to scientific rigor and neutrality.?TERA?operates as an independent, non-profit organization with a mission to assess risk based on sound science for?public health protection. While industry?work?(which equates to approximately 1/3 of TERA's effort) is part of its research, neither industry nor government dictates outcomes.? TERA has consistently disclosed?funding sources?and will continue to do so with future publications, ensuring transparency.??
?
3.?Oversimplification of PFAS Research
The complexity of PFAS chemicals, including PFOA and PFOS, cannot be reduced to simple narratives about regulatory battles. The Guardian article paints the scientific community’s understanding of PFAS as settled, ignoring valid debates within toxicology and epidemiology regarding safe exposure levels. While the EPA has set strict limits based on animal and epidemiological studies,?Dr. Dourson?and other researchers argue that these limits may be unnecessarily conservative and warrant further review,?consistent with the findings of?the international community. Peer-reviewed research is essential to refining these limits and ensuring they are based on the best available evidence, not on precautionary principles that may lack empirical support.
?
4.?Cherry-Picking International Standards
The article points to international standards, such as those in Canada, to support the notion that the U.S. should have stricter PFAS limits. However, it conveniently ignores the fact that many countries, including some in Europe,?New Zealand, and Australia?have much higher allowable limits for PFAS in drinking water. The science around PFAS is evolving, and it’s essential to recognize that different regulatory bodies may adopt different standards based on local conditions, available technologies, and risk assessments.
?
5.?The Role of Uncertainty in Regulatory Science
Regulatory science, by nature, involves uncertainty. Highlighting uncertainties in scientific studies, as?Dr. Dourson?and his international colleagues do, is not a tactic to “undermine” regulation, as the article suggests, but rather a responsible practice in ensuring that regulations are based on the most accurate, reliable, and up-to-date science. As?Dr. Dourson?has rightly pointed out, no study can be perfectly designed to address every potential variable, and regulators must weigh the full body of evidence rather than cherry-picking data to support more stringent regulations.
?
6.?The Need for Balanced Public Discourse
While the article frames?TERA’s efforts as a “playbook” for undermining environmental regulations, it is important to recognize that the role of scientists is not to take sides but to contribute to a balanced, evidence-based public discourse. Efforts to label dissenting voices in science as “industry-aligned” or “controversial” without fully considering the validity of their research stifles progress and leads to an echo chamber that is detrimental to public health and safety.??Scientific societies, such as the Society of Toxicology, rightly point out the?fallacies of labeling research as biased based on the origin of the funding.
?
In conclusion, the narrative presented by?The Guardian?dismisses important nuances in the debate over PFAS regulation.?TERA?and and Dr. Dourson's international colleagues are conducting vital work to ensure that regulatory limits are based on sound science and not prematurely set without adequate review. I urge readers and regulators alike to consider the full body of scientific research and engage in an open, fact-based discussion.??
?
Worked over 40 years in the Global Chemical Industry
1 个月Keep fighting Michael Dourson, Ph.D., DABT, FATS, FSRA I have seen others write that the Guardian and their journalists (typically free-lancers) are extremely well backed by funding via plaintiffs attorney groups, NGOs and foundations that are a) traditionally anti-industry and b) not at all transparent about their own funding sources. This dark money is needed because of the massive collapse of the legacy print media sources of income (advertising and paid subscribers). They point a finger at anyone that ever took a dime from “industry” (which in their world makes such person biased and deceptive). Although representing themselves as “independent” noble journalists, fighting for the little guy, they aren’t. If a scientist that receives any amount of funding from industry is “tainted”, aren’t these journalists (whose funding depends on clicks and echo chambers) also “tainted” by money from dark sources? They are giving the journalism profession a bad name. Unfortunately no one really sees this as declarations of potential conflicts of interest or funding sources are never declared in a Guardian article. #transparency #journalism #money