Bill Eisenman, a resident of a Detroit suburb, grew up fishing and consuming whatever he caught. However, recent concerns about PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances), also known as "forever chemicals," have altered his perspective. These chemicals, which accumulate in the environment and our bodies, have been found in significant amounts in freshwater fish, causing worry among researchers, anglers, and environmental activists.
PFAS, emerging from manufacturing plants, landfills, and military bases, have polluted local ecosystems, surface water, groundwater, and wildlife. This has led to advisories in at least 17 states advising against fish consumption from certain water bodies due to high PFAS levels.
The Environmental Working Group's study highlights the alarming levels of PFAS in freshwater fish, with a single serving equating to a month's worth of PFAS-contaminated drinking water. This poses a substantial health risk, especially to communities reliant on subsistence fishing. David Andrews, co-author of the study, emphasizes that PFAS levels in fish are thousands of times higher than in drinking water.
Dianne Kopec, a researcher at the University of Maine, warns that PFAS may be more harmful than mercury, another contaminant found in fish. PFAS bioaccumulates up the food chain, with larger fish having higher concentrations. This is particularly concerning in areas near contamination sources.
The Ecology Center in Michigan educates anglers about these health impacts. Eisenman participated in a community-based study by the center, revealing alarming PFAS levels in fish from Michigan's Huron and Rouge rivers. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have linked PFAS exposure to various health effects, including cancer and low birth weight.
While efforts to curb PFAS have mostly focused on drinking water, comprehensive federal guidance on fish consumption is lacking. This inconsistency among states leaves significant blind spots in public health advisories. Store-bought ocean fish, like Atlantic salmon and canned tuna, reportedly have lower PFAS levels.
California and several other states have no specific advisories for PFAS in fish. This is partly due to limited monitoring resources and a focus on legacy chemicals like PCBs and mercury. States like New Hampshire and Maine have more protective guidance, while others like Michigan and Maryland are more lax.
The primary manufacturer of PFOS, a common PFAS chemical, 3M, began phasing out the chemical in 2000. A class-action lawsuit settlement by 3M was recently questioned by attorneys general from 22 states for being insufficient.
The military, aware of PFAS health concerns since the 1970s, has been mandated by Congress to phase out PFAS-containing firefighting foam by 2024. However, many water bodies near military bases remain contaminated.
Efforts to reduce PFAS pollution are critical. Andrews notes a 30% drop in PFAS contamination in fish over five years, suggesting that pollution reduction can yield positive results. However, complete cleanup remains challenging, as Erica Bloom from the Ecology Center points out.
Addressing PFAS contamination at its source is vital to protect our water bodies and the health of communities dependent on them. Without this, the cycle of pollution and the need for advisories will persist, costing taxpayers and affecting public health.
No comments:
Post a Comment