My thoughts on today's PFAS news stories
Fairfax newspapers ( The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age) feature a major front-page story today on PFAS chemical contamination of drinking water in Australia.
?PFAS have become truly ubiquitous chemical contaminants around the globe. In recently reported studies, PFAS have been detected in Antarctica, the Tibetan Alps, rainfall, snow, and sea spray. Regardless of whether we have analytical capacity to detect it, you can assume some amount of PFAS is present in practically any Australian drinking water sample.
?Looking at the data in the article, some are reported as “No Detect” and other data reported as “Less than X” (where X is a PFAS concentration). The “No Detect” data are colour-coded green, suggesting that no PFAS was present, but the “Less than X” data are colour-coded yellow, suggesting PFAS is present, but below detection limits. These are effectively the same result, just reported differently.
?In my opinion, all the green colour-coded results should instead be yellow, indicating all that can realistically be said: the concentration of PFAS is less than the detection limit of the method used to measure it.
?Almost all the data reported in this story showed PFAS concentrations to be lower than the Australian Drinking Water Guideline (ADWG). As stated in the article, there are four exceptions, from Ayr, Norfolk Island, Macknade/Lucinda, and Bundaberg and these “affected water supplies have now been decommissioned at all four locations”. As it should be.
?But the key question the article raises is why are the ADWG values so much higher than the recently finalised US ‘Maximum Contaminant Levels’ (MCLs)? This is a reasonable question and it relates -in part- to the fact that the ADWG values were established around 2017 and the US EPA values were finalised in 2024. The science -and concerns regarding toxicity- for PFAS chemicals have been rapidly developing during this time.
?But it is also true to say that there remains a lot of uncertainty regarding human toxicity of these chemicals, and there is no black-and-white approach for determining which toxicological observations should ultimately be translated into exposure guidelines. Different agencies will almost inevitably weigh the balance of evidence differently.
?The article goes further and compares the PFAS data to the US ‘Maximum Contaminant Level Goals’ (MCLGs). This is not helpful since the US routinely sets MCLGs for all known and suspected carcinogens at “zero”. That’s a nice aspirational statement, but its never enforceable, since there is no way of verifying a “zero” concentration (you can only ever know whether the concentration is below the available detection limit).
?Furthermore, the difference in public health risk level between a concentration below the MCL and actual “zero” is insignificant. If you aspire to meaningfully improve the public health of a population, you should invest your resources elsewhere (and there are plenty of ‘elsewheres’!).
?An important question that was not addressed is one of ‘relative exposure’. PFAS are known to be widely distributed in the environment and humans will be exposed from many sources: food, food packaging, household products, makeup, toilet paper, etc. The level of risk we are at will be dependent on our total exposure, not specifically our exposure from one source (e.g. drinking water).
?Unless we are confident that drinking water is among the major exposure sources, we won’t have a significant impact on public health risk by making drinking water exposure lower. An improved understanding of relative exposure sources, -with a specific focus on the Australian population- is urgently needed. This will help us to understand where efforts should be invested to deliver meaningful exposure reductions.
?In my view, the recent publication of the stringent US MCLs should be a trigger for Australia to undertake a review to develop a clear position -with updated justification- for why the ADWG values remain appropriate, or why they should now be changed. This should be a Commonwealth Government priority, involving at least two of its agencies: Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) and the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). I am aware that the NHMRC has already initiated such a review.
?One aspect of this article that I strongly agree with is that there needs to be a ‘polluter pays’ approach to addressing this problem. International chemical companies have profited by producing these chemicals and have clearly done so without sufficient regard for managing environmental pollution. Any further monitoring that is deemed necessary for Australia should be funded by these companies.
?Furthermore, if Australia finds itself needing to upgrade water treatment processes to manage safe levels of exposure to PFAS, this should also be funded by the companies responsible.
?US public water systems must now monitor for PFAS and have three years to complete initial monitoring (by 2027), followed by ongoing compliance monitoring. Water systems must also provide the public with information on the levels of PFAS in their drinking water beginning in 2027. Public water systems have five years (by 2029) to implement solutions that reduce these PFAS if monitoring shows that drinking water levels exceed these MCLs.
?The US Government has allocated more than a billion dollars to help states implement PFAS testing and treatment at public water systems and to help owners of private wells address PFAS contamination. But this will surely not be sufficient to bring all water supplies into compliance with the new MCLs.
?If something similar is going to be needed in Australia, we will either see astronomical increases to customer water bills to pay for it, or we’re going to have to find the $billions elsewhere. Good luck to us.
Le beau monde Melbourne????
1 个月Pros-processing foods- chemical poison Export and import to from the country is not care about safety foods standards and these Poison Pros-processing foods don’t know expeired date and ingredient etc to service to customers There is a lack of oversight in the import and export of food products, leading to concerns about safety standards. Many of these processed foods may not have proper labeling, such as expiration dates or a full list of ingredients, potentially posing health risks to consumers. The absence of stringent regulations increases the likelihood of contaminated or unsafe foods reaching the market.”This highlights the issue of inadequate food safety regulation and its potential impact on community & younger generation's health. now From Some Restaurants or and takeaways and asian shops Some bring the pros -processing to reduce to cost of employees wages and to use it It is a chemical poison and all world ?? need to against it particularly regarding processed foods and the lack of oversight in import and export law regulations.
Managing Director - Vytas - Hydrogen, Ultra High Purity Quartz, High Purity Alumina and Technology Materials
4 个月Wait until we roll out PFAS on a major scale for "Green Hydrogen". There are PFAS free solutions but the lazy option has been adopted without disclosure to government or community consultation.
Water and Environmental Management / Strategy and Planning / Research and Innovation / Communications and Engagement AWA NSW Branch Committee
5 个月Great opinion piece, Stu. I strongly agree with your call for further research into the Australian context to provide improved understanding of relative exposure sources. Sydney’s drinking water catchments are relatively pristine. While I want assurance that PFAS and other chemicals pose no risk to our drinking water through ongoing and thorough water quality monitoring, I would like to see investment and effort to where greatest risk of exposure lies. While the science in other countries should alert us to potential inadequacies of our ADWG, we should always be mindful of our local context. It will be interesting to see how well or otherwise, US cities are able to meet their new strident standards. I also like the idea of a user pays system for pollution. Alas, I have little hope we will be effective in holding companies account for their impacts on the environment. Just look at the impacts wet wipes have had on our sewage system, and the failed attempts even to have these wipes appropriately labeled as not flushable.
PhD in environmental health science, master in environmental engineering, Bachelor in environmental science and Research Fellow at Griffith University
5 个月Great advice!
Innovation Manager | Water research and technology | Global expertise
5 个月Thanks for your thoughts on this, Stuart. I'd like to explore the "polluter pays" idea further as it has merit - identifying and prioritising these polluters, perhaps mapped to risk, would be a huge tast, but an important one!