The toxic “forever chemicals” known as PFAS contaminated “almost all” of the popular baby formula brands tested recently by Consumer Reports, it says in a new report.
These results are troubling. The study analyzed 41 popular baby formula brands, including well-known names like Enfamil and Similac, startups like Bobbie, and a range of store and imported brands, for the presence of chemicals like arsenic, lead, BPA, acrylamide and PFAS.
Because the study tested just one sample per brand, more research is needed to be certain which ones contain forever chemicals.
Even more concerning is that many of the PFAS compounds detected have not been thoroughly studied, leaving uncertainty about their potential health risks, especially for infant safety.
PFAS are everywhere, from cookware and food packaging to waterproof clothing and cosmetics. They contaminate water, food such as baby formula, soil, air and household dust, contributing to widespread exposure.
Consumer Reports’ scientists detected PFAS in most of the formula samples, with one particularly concerning compound standing out: PFOS, detected in several samples. It is one of the most notorious PFAS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard. It was phased out in the U.S. under pressure from the Environmental Protection Agency after revelations of PFOS health hazards.
The EPA now regulates PFOS in drinking water with a maximum contaminant level of 4 parts per trillion, due to its classification as a carcinogen.
Because of its known toxicity and potential long-term health impacts, the presence of PFOS in any baby formula is especially alarming. PFAS don’t break down in the environment, and they build up in the human body over time. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has detected PFAS in the blood of 99 percent of Americans, including newborn babies.
EWG’s PFAS map shows PFOS contamination in nearly half of the nation’s drinking water. Without any information to the contrary, it’s possible to surmise that some of the PFOS Consumer Reports detected comes from contaminated water used for the formula.
This possible source of PFOS in formula raises urgent questions about manufacturing processes and the need for stronger industry oversight and stricter safety standards to protect infants from exposure to hazardous chemicals.
PFAS exposure risks for babies and children
Babies and young children, whose bodies are still developing, are particularly vulnerable to PFAS exposure, which can have lifelong consequences. Their small size, growing organs and developing immune systems make them especially susceptible to the harmful effects of these bioaccumulative chemicals, which remain in the body for years.
Even small amounts of PFAS in formula can add to cumulative exposure, putting infants’ growth and health at risk.
Research has found PFAS in umbilical cord blood and breast milk, revealing direct prenatal and early-life exposure. Babies born with PFAS in their cord blood are more likely to have elevated cholesterol and triglyceride levels – biomarkers linked to future heart disease. PFAS exposure also disrupts bile acids, which are essential for digestion and metabolism, so the risk of chronic health issues may go up as these children grow.
Even very low doses of PFAS can also weaken babies’ immune systems, making them more prone to infection and reducing vaccine effectiveness. PFAS exposure has also been linked to thyroid dysfunction, which can impair growth and brain development. In the gut, PFAS may alter the balance of microbial cells, disrupting digestion and weakening immune defenses.
PFAS pollution has caused a widespread public health crisis. Over 143 million Americans are exposed because of their drinking water. These forever chemicals have contaminated the water supply at 8,865 sites in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and two U.S. territories.
Yet despite mounting evidence of harm, our government mostly fails to regulate PFAS contamination of food, including baby formula.
Following Consumer Reports’ alarming findings, the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to strengthen oversight of the baby formula industry. The agency pledged to increase testing for heavy metals and other contaminants in formula, a welcome step.
But it remains unclear whether tests for PFAS will be included or whether the FDA will establish safe limits for these toxic chemicals in infant nutrition. Without stronger regulations, children will continue to be at risk of harm from this insidious threat.
We urgently need stricter regulations and greater accountability from industries that have allowed PFAS to infiltrate everyday life.
Consumer Reports’ findings are a wake-up call for regulators and manufacturers to prioritize infant safety by eliminating PFAS from formula and strengthening oversight.
What parents need to know
No parent should have to worry whether their baby’s formula contains toxic chemicals. Parents can take practical steps to help reduce their baby’s exposure, including
Using filtered water when preparing powdered formula. Since PFAS can contaminate tap water, a water filter can help reduce exposure. The most effective option is a reverse osmosis system installed under the sink or at the tap, but these systems can be costly. Fortunately, many countertop pitcher filters have also proven effective in lowering PFAS levels, according to EWG tests.
Pushing for stronger regulations. Parents can make their voices heard by supporting consumer safety initiatives that demand the FDA set stricter standards for PFAS and other contaminants in baby formula. Greater oversight and enforcement are essential to protecting infant health.
No family should face the burden of toxic exposure from essential nutrition. By taking steps to reduce risk and advocating for stricter safety measures, parents can help protect their children’s health and push for long-overdue industry accountability.
“PFAS is found in water, soil, air and food. It’s in your home, including in household products like stain- and water-repellant fabrics, cleaning products, nonstick cookware and paint — and likely in your drinking water…fast food containers and wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes and candy wrappers are common culprits. “
Story at-a-glance
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) may promote cancer metastasis, according to a study by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health
Researchers immersed two types of colorectal cancer cells in a PFAS solution for up to seven days; metabolic changes signaling cancer metastasis were observed, along with increased cell motility
Not only was the cells’ migration ability boosted, but they had a tendency to spread and penetrate membranes
PFAS may lead to altered gene expression and epigenetic changes that in turn cause inflammation, endocrine disruption and changes in metabolism and cell signaling that promote carcinogenesis
Other research shows exposure to PFAS may worsen the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl chemicals (PFAS) may accelerate the progression of colorectal cancer, according to a study by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health.1 The finding could even explain why firefighters, who regularly come into contact with PFAS in firefighting foam, are also more likely to develop and die from cancer, including colorectal cancer.2
PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because of their persistence in the environment and ability to bioaccumulate in people and wildlife. In the human body, PFAS have half-lives of two to five years.3 Due to their ability to repel oil, dirt and water, they’re widely used in consumer products including nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabric and firefighting foams.
As endocrine-disrupting chemicals, PFAS are known to affect hormones and metabolism, interfering with fertility, growth and development.4 However, PFAS may also contribute to cancer, including promoting its spread.5
PFAS Could Promote Cancer Metastasis
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), one type of PFAS, is categorized as carcinogenic to humans by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, while perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) is considered possibly carcinogenic to humans.6
Due to chemical exposures on the job, firefighters have higher levels of PFAS in their bodies than the general population, and they’re also more likely to develop colorectal cancer. About 80% of these cancer cases are believed to be due to environmental exposures.7
“We look at patterns that occur within an exposed group of people or a diseased group of people, then try to generate a hypothesis as to why somebody may develop a disease or have progression of disease,” study author Caroline Johnson, Ph.D., associate professor of epidemiology, said.8
For the study, researchers immersed two types of colorectal cancer cells in a PFAS solution for up to seven days. Metabolic changes signaling cancer metastasis were observed, along with increased cell motility. “It doesn’t prove it’s metastasis, but they have increased motility, which is a feature of metastasis,” Johnson said.9
Not only was the cells’ migration ability boosted, but they had a tendency to spread and penetrate membranes. According to a news release from Yale School of Public Health:10
“In another experiment, researchers grew the cells as a flat, two-dimensional layer, then drew a scratch down the middle, separating half of the cells from the other half. When they added PFAS, the cell lines grew and migrated back together again … Metabolomic analysis revealed the spheroids were producing a variety of fatty acids, amino acids, and signaling proteins in patterns previously linked to metastasis.
Small-chain fatty acids, which can protect against tumors and inflammation, were downregulated.”
The study used PFAS exposure levels similar to those in firefighters and others who have increased exposure, such as people living near military bases, landfills, airports and wastewater treatment plants. The researchers intend to conduct additional studies to see if lower levels of PFAS exposure, such as what an average person might be exposed to on a daily basis, have similar effects.
PFAS Exposure May Worsen Colorectal Cancer Prognosis
Other research shows exposure to PFAS may worsen the prognosis of patients with colorectal cancer.11 Every quantile increase in PFAS mixtures was associated with a 4.67% increase in the numbers of metastatic lymph nodes in colorectal cancer patients.
Further, the number of metastatic lymph nodes in patients with serum PFOA concentrations in the 95th percentile was 27% higher than in those with concentrations at the threshold level.12 Some evidence also suggests that PFOS exposure leads to gastrointestinal inflammation that contributes to ulcerative colitis, a precursor to colorectal cancer.13
PFAS may lead to altered gene expression and epigenetic changes that in turn cause inflammation, endocrine disruption and changes in metabolism and cell signaling that promote carcinogenesis.14 Writing in Frontiers in Toxicology, researchers explained, “Current literature suggests a link between long-term PFOS exposure, lipid metabolism dysregulation, inflammation, microbiome dysfunction and the etiology of colorectal cancer.”15
Exposure to PFAS has previously been linked to thyroid cancer. Researchers looked into associations between plasma PFAS levels and thyroid cancer diagnosis. Using data from 88 patients with thyroid cancer and 88 matched controls without thyroid cancer, the team measured levels of eight PFAS, finding a significant association.
“There was a 56% increased rate of thyroid cancer diagnosis per doubling of linear perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (n-PFOS) intensity,” according to the study.16 Another analysis was conducted on a subgroup of 31 patients who were diagnosed with thyroid cancer a year or more after enrolling in the study.
This analysis also found an association between exposure to PFOS and thyroid cancer risk, as well as exposure to several other PFAS, including branched perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, perfluorononanoic acid, perfluorooctylphosphonic acid and linear perfluorohexanesulfonic acid.17
PFAS may contribute to cancer via multiple mechanisms, incuding causing changes in epigenetics, immunosuppression, oxidative stress and inflammation or via hormone and metabolomic pathways. An accumulation of epigenetic events induced by PFAS exposure can “synergistically amplify tumorigenicity and cancer progression,” the team explained, adding that immune system suppression and chronic inflammation also likely play a role:18
“PFOS and PFOA have been found to be immunotoxic in epidemiological and animal studies. Suppression of the immune system can affect the body’s response to foreign antigens, including those on tumor cells.
PFOS exposures are inversely associated with decreased anti-mumps and anti-rubella antibodies and reduced antibody response to tetanus and diphtheria among children, demonstrating the ability of PFOS to cause systemic immunosuppression.
Chronic inflammation, which can drive cancer development, has been linked with PFOS exposures … Finally, PFOS activates peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors, which contributed to development and regulation of thyroid cancers.”
Additional Health Risks of PFAS Exposure
Exposure to high levels of PFAS is known to cause significant health problems, including damage to the immune system, and evidence from both human and animal studies shows that such exposure may reduce your resistance to infectious disease.19 It may also harm vision health — a concerning finding since PFAS are often found in contact lenses.20
A large population-based study conducted in China found exposure to PFAS increased the risk of visual impairment,21 possibly by inducing oxidative stress. “PFASs are proven pro-oxidants and exposure to these emerging pollutants elicits DNA damage, lipid peroxidation, generation of reactive of species (ROS), and inhibition of anti-oxidant enzymes, as well as triggers signaling cascades like apoptosis,” they explained.22
Military members who were exposed to PFAS on military bases have also suffered from a number of eye conditions, including myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and presbyopia.23 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency also acknowledges that PFAS exposure is harmful and states that peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown exposure to PFAS may cause:24
Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations or behavioral changes
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney and testicular cancers
Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response
Interference with the body’s natural hormones
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity
PFAS are also known to accelerate metabolic changes that lead to fatty liver. “This bioaccumulation,” researchers wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives, “coupled with the long half-lives of many PFAS, leads to concern about the potential for PFAS to disrupt liver homeostasis should they continue to accumulate in human tissue even if industrial use is abated.”25
Further, PFAS exposure may be causing inflammation and oxidative stress in youth, thus contributing to a variety of diseases such as obesity, insulin resistance, increased risk for fatty liver disease and potentially cancer.26,27
Where Are PFAS Found?
The ubiquitous nature of PFAS is part of what makes them so toxic. There are more than 9,000 PFAS,28 and exposure is so widespread that PFAS have been found in 97% of Americans.29 PFAS is found in water, soil, air and food. It’s in your home, including in household products like stain- and water-repellant fabrics, cleaning products, nonstick cookware and paint — and likely in your drinking water.30
Fast food containers and wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes and candy wrappers31 are common culprits. They’re also found in pasta and tomato sauces, sports bras, tampons and dental floss,32 as well as Thinx period underwear.33
PFAS on farmland is another major issue — one that’s been called a “slow-motion disaster”34 — due to the use of toxic human waste sludge as fertilizer. An estimated 20 million acres of U.S. farmland may be contaminated with PFAS as a result.35
While foods grown with PFAS-contaminated sewage sludge are not labeled as such, your best bet for avoiding them is to support sustainable agriculture movements in your area. Make it a point to only buy food from a source you know and trust, one using safe, nontoxic organic or biodynamic farming methods. Eating mostly fresh, whole foods will also help you cut down on exposure to these chemicals in food packaging.
Filtering your drinking water is also important to remove PFAS. The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute recommends using granulated activated carbon “or an equally efficient technology” to remove chemicals such as PFOA and PFOS from your drinking water. Activated carbon has been shown to remove about 90% of these chemicals.36
Reverse osmosis can also remove some — but not all — PFAS.37 You can find additional helpful tips to reduce your exposure to forever chemicals in EWG’s “Guide to Avoiding PFAS.”38
Pretreated or stain-repellent treatments — Opt out of these treatments on clothing, furniture and carpeting. Clothing advertised as “breathable” is typically treated with polytetrafluoroethylene, a synthetic fluoropolymer.
Products treated with flame retardant chemicals — This includes furniture, carpet, mattresses and baby items. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton.
Fast food and carry-out foods — The containers are typically treated.
Microwave popcorn — PFAS may be present in the inner coating of the bag and may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use “old-fashioned” stovetop non-GMO popcorn.
Nonstick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils — Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won’t release any harmful chemicals into your home.
Personal care products containing PTFE, “fluoro” or “perfluoro” ingredients such as Oral B Glide floss — The EWG Skin Deep database is an excellent source to search for healthier personal care options.39
Mamavation, in partnership with Environmental Health News, had 18 different brands of contact lenses tested for organic fluorine, a marker for PFAS
All the contact lenses tested positive for fluorine, at levels ranging from 105 to 20,700 parts per million (ppm)
While 44% of the contact lenses tested contained fluorine at a level over 4,000 ppm, 22% contained more than 18,000 ppm
A large population-based study conducted in China found exposure to PFAS increased the risk of visual impairment
PFAS is likely used in contact lenses to make them soft and allow oxygen to flow through, but the chemicals are linked to reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, liver disease and more
Toxic polyfluoroalkyl or perfluoroalkyl chemicals, collectively known as PFAS, may be lurking in your contact lenses. The compounds, which have been dubbed “forever chemicals” because they break down so slowly, have been linked to reproductive and developmental problems,1 cancer, obesity,2 nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD)3 and more.
PFAS is known for making surfaces slippery, hence their widespread use in nonstick cookware. They’re also found in many other consumer products, however, including food takeout containers, food packaging, stain- and grease-resistant products, furniture and personal care products. Many people are unaware these chemicals are in products they use daily, including contact lenses, which may spend up to 16 hours next to your eye each day.
Contact Lenses ‘Almost Pure PFAS’
Mamavation, in partnership with Environmental Health News, has been investigating PFAS in everyday products such as clothes, food and makeup.4 Many social media users had asked the wellness blog if soft contact lenses contain PFAS, so they sent 18 different brands to a laboratory certified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to test for organic fluorine, a marker for PFAS.
All the contact lenses tested positive for fluorine, at levels ranging from 105 to 20,700 parts per million (ppm). While 44% of the contact lenses tested contained fluorine at a level over 4,000 ppm, 22% contained more than 18,000 ppm.5 The contact lenses with the highest organic fluorine levels were:6
Alcon Air Optix Colors with Smartshield Technology (20,700 ppm)
Alcon Total30 Contact Lenses for Daily Wear (20,400 ppm)
Alcon Air Optix (No Hydraglide) for Astigmatism (20,000 ppm)
What does this mean in terms of your health? Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences, said:7
“The presumption that these organic fluorine levels measured in contact lenses are safe is laughable. Last summer the EPA issued health advisories in drinking for four common PFAS, ranging from 0.004 parts per trillion (ppt) to 2000 ppt. EPA considers exposure beneath these thresholds to be safe for drinking water.
While comparing drinking levels in water to concentrations in contact lenses is like comparing apples to oranges, it’s worth noting that all of the contact lenses tested exceeded 100 ppm, which is equivalent to 100,000,000 ppt, or 50,000 times higher than the highest level deemed safe in drinking water by the EPA.”
Manufacturers don’t have to disclose when PFAS are used in their products. It’s legal to claim the contents are a “trade secret.”8 But according to Scott Belcher, a North Carolina State University researcher and scientific adviser on the testing, fluoropolymers are likely.
He told The Guardian fluoropolymer PFAS “have the properties that your eyes want … It wants to get oxygen and doesn’t want bacteria to grow like crazy, and it wants lenses to be smooth and comfortable.”9 Fluoropolymers likely make contact lenses soft and allow oxygen to flow through them,10 but the convenience of having smooth contact lenses comes at a price.
A 2020 review into the chemicals found “their production and uses should be curtailed except in cases of essential uses,” given their extreme persistence in the environment, toxic emissions associated with their production and use, and a high likelihood that they contribute to human exposure to PFAS.11
PFAS Exposure May Harm Your Vision
Little is known about how the eyes may absorb PFAS, but the chemicals are known to be absorbed via the skin, leading to immunotoxicity.12 Further, The Guardian reported, “PFAS also break down into different types of PFAS once in the environment, so it is possible that the polymers turn into dangerous forms of the chemicals once in the eye or contact packaging, but no studies have been done.”13
Linda Birnbaum, scientist emeritus and former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology Program, further told Mamavation:14
“Your eyes are one of the most sensitive parts of your body. Therefore, it’s concerning to see the presence of organic fluorine, which is likely a type of PFAS, found in all soft contact lens products tested. What about the idea of doing no harm? Do we have proof these products are safe? A lack of safety studies does not qualify as ‘safety,’ which is what is happening here.”
Research that has been done on PFAS and vision is cause for concern. A large population-based study conducted in China found exposure to PFAS increased the risk of visual impairment.15 The researchers suggested PFAS may induce oxidative stress, with a detrimental effect on the eyes.
“PFASs are proven pro-oxidants and exposure to these emerging pollutants elicits DNA damage, lipid peroxidation, generation of reactive of species (ROS), and inhibition of anti-oxidant enzymes, as well as triggers signaling cascades like apoptosis,” they explained.16 Military members who were exposed to PFAS on military bases have also suffered from a number of eye conditions, including myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and presbyopia.17
Using PFAS Contacts May Leave You ‘Permanently Contaminated’
More than 98% of Americans have PFAS in their blood.18 But using contacts made from the material daily could leave you permanently contaminated. According to Terrence Collins, director of the Institute for Green Sciences at Carnegie Mellon University:19
“Fluoropolymers improve the technical performance of contact lenses at attractive price performances and customers are naturally attracted. But the other key performances for safe and sustainable chemical products, the health, environmental and fairness performances, are not given adequate attention by manufacturers, legislators, or regulators.
If you use fluoropolymer-containing contact lenses, you are likely to become permanently contaminated. No one today can tell you that fluoropolymer exposures are safe because no jurisdiction has been demanding the development and scrutiny of appropriate safety testing.
Your body cannot process fluoropolymers to safe products to protect you and nature is just as helpless when you throw the lenses away. But we know enough about PFAS chemicals to guess and fear that fluoropolymers in human cells or in the environment are anything but a pretty safety picture. I advise that such contact lenses be rigorously avoided.”
The environmental ramifications are also cause for alarm, considering more than 45 million Americans wear contact lenses — and up to 46% of them wear disposable varieties that are trashed daily. Every year, 2.5 billion contact lenses — about 44,000 pounds’ worth — are thrown away or end up in wastewater treatment plants after they’re flushed down a toilet or sink.20
In the environment, PFAS have devastating effects, to the extent that consuming a single serving of freshwater fish annually equates to a month of drinking water contaminated with PFOS — one type of PFAS — at a concentration of 48 parts per trillion.21
PFAS does not break down in water or soil and can be carried over great distances by wind or rain, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).22
PFAS Exposure Linked to Significant Health Risks
If your contact lenses contain PFAS, you may want to reconsider using them. Exposure to high levels of PFAS is also known to affect the immune system, and evidence from both human and animal studies shows that such exposure may reduce your resistance to infectious disease.23 The EPA also acknowledges that PFAS exposure is harmful and states that peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown exposure to PFAS may cause:24
Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women
Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations or behavioral changes
Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney and testicular cancers
Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response
Interference with the body’s natural hormones
Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity
Liver disease is another known risk. PFAS are endocrine-disrupting chemicals that accumulate in body tissues, such as the liver, and are known to accelerate metabolic changes that lead to fatty liver.
“This bioaccumulation,” researchers wrote in Environmental Health Perspectives, “coupled with the long half-lives of many PFAS, leads to concern about the potential for PFAS to disrupt liver homeostasis should they continue to accumulate in human tissue even if industrial use is abated.”25
How Else Can You Be Exposed to PFAS?
In addition to contact lenses, PFAS can be found in water, soil, air and food. It’s in your home, including in household products like stain- and water-repellant fabrics, cleaning products, nonstick cookware and paint — and likely in your drinking water.26
Fast food containers and wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, pizza boxes and candy wrappers27 are also common PFAS sources. One study released by consumer watchdog groups Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and Toxic-Free Future even revealed high levels of fluorine in five of 17 paper products that come in contact with food at Whole Foods Market — four of which were containers in the salad and hot food bar.28
Testing by Mamavation has also found evidence of PFAS in pasta and tomato sauces, sports bras, tampons and dental floss.29 Since the chemicals migrate into food and contaminate compost piles and landfills after disposal, the use of PFAS leads to unnecessary long-term exposure to harmful chemicals for humans, wildlife and the environment, especially since PFAS-free packaging options are widely available.
Tips for Avoiding PFAS
PFAS has no taste or smell but is widespread in the environment and in consumer products. You’ll want to filter your drinking water to avoid this common route of exposure. Also avoid products that are stain-resistant, waterproof or nonstick, as most contain PFAS.
Regarding contact lenses, you can avoid PFAS exposure by using glasses instead. To further reduce your exposure, the Environmental Working Group recommends avoiding:30
Items that have been pretreated with stain repellants and opt out of such treatments when buying new furniture and carpets.
Water- and/or stain-repellant clothing. One tipoff is when an item made with artificial fibers is described as “breathable.” These are typically treated with PTFE.
Items treated with flame retardant chemicals, which includes a wide variety of baby items, padded furniture, mattresses and pillows. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton.
Fast food and carry out foods, as the wrappers are typically treated with PFAS.
Microwave popcorn. PFAS may not only be present in the inner coating of the bag, it also may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use “old-fashioned” stovetop popcorn.
Nonstick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils. Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won’t release any harmful chemicals into your home. A newer type of nonstick cookware called Duralon uses a nonfluoridated nylon polymer for its nonstick coating. While this appears to be safe, your safest bet is still ceramic and enameled cast iron.
Oral-B Glide floss and any other personal care products containing PTFE or “fluoro” or “perfluoro” ingredients.
“Forever chemicals are synthetic chemicals commonly used in consumer and industrial products. There are many types of these chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Perfluooctane sulfate (PFOS) is just one type of PFAS…Researchers found that study participants with high levels of PFOS in their blood were four and a half times as likely to develop liver cancer“
(NaturalHealth365) Your liver is a vital organ with hundreds of important functions. For instance, your liver works hard to cleanse your blood of poisons and toxins.
Now, a recent study published in JHEP Reports shows a disturbing link between a synthetic “forever chemical” and deadly liver cancer. The report suggests that the higher the exposure to forever chemicals, the higher the chance of developing liver cancer.
Man-made forever chemicals linked to deadly form of liver cancer
Forever chemicals are synthetic chemicals commonly used in consumer and industrial products. There are many types of these chemicals, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Perfluooctane sulfate (PFOS) is just one type of PFAS.
For the JHEP study, researchers analyzed human blood and tissue samples previously collected for an epidemiological study. Researchers looked at the samples of people who did or did not develop liver cancer.
They evaluated samples taken before cancer diagnosis, comparing them to samples from those who didn’t develop cancer. Researchers found that study participants with high levels of PFOS in their blood were four and a half times as likely to develop liver cancer.
The participants who developed cancer all had high levels of multiple types of PFAS in their blood. But the strongest link was between PFOS and liver cancer. Although other studies involving animals have suggested correlations between PFAS and cancer, this is the first human study to prove it.
Here is why PFAS are bad news for your health
Forever chemicals earned their nickname because they are extremely long-lasting. They take a long time to break down, accumulating in our environment and our bodily tissues over time. Unfortunately, the use of these dangerous chemicals is still widespread, although some manufacturers have stopped using them altogether amid growing health concerns.
PFAS are present in drinking water, food, food packaging, and even cosmetics. This is bad news for your health. Besides being carcinogenic, PFAS are associated with liver damage, kidney disease, neurological damage, and autoimmune problems. And once these toxic chemicals get into your bloodstream, they’re there for the long haul.
How does PFOS lead to liver cancer?
Researchers speculate that forever chemicals impede natural liver function. For instance, PFOS may interfere with glucose metabolism, bile acid metabolism, and amino acid metabolism. When the liver can’t function normally because of metabolic disruption, fat buildup can occur within the liver. This results in a condition called nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD).
Those with NAFLD have a much higher risk of liver cancer. Shockingly, there has been a global uptick in the number of people diagnosed with NAFLD – with scientists estimating that a whopping 30% of the global population will have NAFLD by the year 2030.
How to minimize intake of PFAS
What can you do to keep your liver healthy and reduce your PFAS exposure? It may be hard to avoid PFAS altogether. But you may be able to minimize exposure by minimizing packaged and processed foods.
Choose organic, whole, or locally grown foods whenever possible. This will ensure you’re avoiding as many harmful chemicals as possible and help you feel your best.
At a time of course, that world wide governments move in on water supplies. Milked to the max, in NZ councils have been selling water off at fire sale prices to corporate conglomerates. Nestle and others have robbed countries of their supplies for pennies on the dollar. Councils in NZ set to centralize the control to government instead of the people. NZ has just mandated fluoride to 14 of its water supplies … adding fluoride, wanted or not. We surely were warned by author Maude Barlow of the new Blue Gold years ago. No mention in this article though of geoengineering (oh yes, it’s a conspiracy theory) … that contamination has been going on for decades. I always distill my water and always there’s a teaspoon or so of white powdery stuff at the end of each cycle … imagine how hard worked your kidneys are filtering that out. Chlorine, a known carcinogen… among other things present in our modern water supplies. EWR
Rainwater almost everywhere on Earth has unsafe levels of ‘forever chemicals’, according to new research.
Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large family of human-made chemicals that don’t occur in nature. They are known as ‘forever chemicals’ because they don’t break down in the environment.
They have non-stick or stain repellent properties so can be found in household items like food packaging, electronics, cosmetics and cookware.
But now researchers at the University of Stockholm have found them in rainwater in most locations on the planet – including Antarctica. There is no safe space to escape them.
I don’t imagine NZ would be too different in terms of pollution. It’s known that we can no longer swim in many of our waterways and certainly our tap water frequently smells strongly of chlorine, a known carcinogen. Then there’s the fluoride and water testing, some have even found aluminum, barium & strontium in it. (Search categories for articles on water in NZ).EWR
For too many Americans, turning on their faucets for a glass of water is like pouring a cocktail of chemicals. Lead, arsenic, the “forever chemicals” known as PFAS and many other substances are often found in drinking water at potentially unsafe levels, particularly in low-income and underserved communities.
From the lead contamination crisis in Flint, Mich., to widespread radium pollution in Brady, Texas, the perils of unsafe water are finally prompting lawmakers and regulators to weigh how to act.
What’s needed is major new federal funding to improve drinking water quality, pay for much-needed lead line replacements, help disadvantaged areas and start to tackle the widespread PFAS problem that has made headlines across the country.
EWG’s landmark Tap Water Database shows how polluted drinking water can be, and why the efforts to fix it at the source are vital. The database collects mandatory annual test reports from 2014 to 2019, produced by almost 50,000 water utilities in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
It reveals that when some Americans drink a glass of tap water, they’re also potentially getting a dose of industrial or agricultural contaminants linked to cancer, brain and nervous system damage, fertility problems, hormone disruption and other health harms.
And those risks likely increase in underserved communities, particularly those with higher Black or Latino populations. EWG’s research finds that people living in such areas might have a greater collective risk of cancer from the contaminants in their drinking water supplies than people in other parts of the country.
Why does this unacceptable situation persist? One reason is that there is not enough funding to help replace lead pipelines and clean up our drinking water. Another is that federal water safety standards aren’t keeping pace with the latest science on contaminants – some regulations haven’t been updated in more than 50 years, and the Environmental Protection Agency is not moving fast enough on new drinking water rules.
Ambitious efforts to safeguard the water we drink must achieve that goal for every American.
It’s easy to be pessimistic about whether that idea is realistic, given that Flint is in its seventh year of the lead catastrophe. Yet an increased focus by Congress on drinking water funding, the rising and necessary role of environmental equity, and firm commitments for improvements by those with the power to make them happen all provide reason to be hopeful.
