Blueberries and bell peppers: six fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide risk

Op-ed: When it comes to food chemicals, Europe’s food safety agency and the FDA are oceans apart

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are two major global agencies in charge of food chemical safety. It is common to hear that food chemical regulations in the EU are more protective of human health than in the U.S. The latest example is the recent ban of four food additives in California. The state’s Governor, Gavin Newsom, noted that the chemicals were already banned in the EU, implying that the lack of action by the FDA was putting the health of Californians at risk. We examined the FDA and EFSA’s responsibilities on food chemical safety to better understand why EFSA decisions are in general more protective of health. We specifically looked at the agencies’ approach to the safety of bisphenol-A (BPA) as an example of disparate decision-making.We found that in the EU the risk assessment and risk management of food chemicals are made by different entities: EFSA focuses on science and the European Commission decides on how the risk is managed. EFSA is independent to follow the science on BPA, for example, which resulted in three risk assessments with the last one showing greater harm to human health. In contrast, the FDA conducts both risk assessment and management and it is unclear how decisions are made. Over the years, the FDA has reviewed BPA studies but continued to maintain that its uses are safe.As the FDA undergoes a reorganization, the agency has a prime opportunity to increase transparency, collaborations and update its approach to evaluating food chemical safety. Separation of risk assessment and management Both in the EU and the U.S., the safety of chemicals allowed in food is based on the chemical’s inherent hazard and the level of exposure. If the risk is such that public health must be protected, a risk management decision is made, often via regulation. These decisions could range from banning chemicals to establishing a consumption level that would not increase health risks. "EFSA focuses on science and the European Commission decides on how the risk is managed ... In contrast, the FDA conducts both risk assessment and management and it is unclear how decisions are made."In the EU, the risk assessment and the risk management decisions are made by different entities. EFSA conducts risk assessments and the European Commission then makes the risk management decision based on EFSA’s findings. This separation allows the risk assessment to be grounded in science and the risk management to consider not only the science but also social, political, technological and economic factors, as well as the precautionary principle.In the U.S., the FDA conducts both risk assessment and management.Striking differences in assessing and managing riskThe EFSA relies on scientific panels composed of independent experts with high standards to limit conflicts of interest and bias. There are ten permanent panels and a scientific committee that supports their work. The scientific opinions are often unanimous, but when they’re not, minority reports are published in the EFSA Journal and also inform the European Commission’s risk management decisions.Unlike the EFSA, FDA staff review safety assessment and information provided by manufacturers. In a safety assessment there usually are four sections: toxicology, chemistry, environmental impact and policy; but it is unclear whether there is an epidemiologist among the reviewers. One FDA staff member from each section writes a memo with a summary of information and the conclusions. These memos inform the risk management decision about the use of a substance. The scientific evaluation is not always publicly available. It is also unclear how and by whom risk management decisions are made and whether the risk assessors are also involved in risk management. Prioritization of chemicals for reassessmentThe EFSA is mandated by law to re-evaluate all food additives authorized for use before 2009. The EFSA also identifies emerging risks and collects data about things like consumption, exposure and biological risk and responds to similar requests from member states.In the U.S., there is no legal mandate for the FDA to re-evaluate the use of the approximately 10,000 chemicals allowed in food, many of them authorized decades ago with little or no safety data. It is unclear if there is a process to identify emerging risks. The first reevaluation of chemicals was in response to President Nixon’s 1969 directive to reassess hundreds of substances the FDA determined to be generally recognized as safe. Only recently, the FDA took the initiative to re-evaluate the safety of partially-hydrogenated oil, Irgafos 168 and brominated vegetable oil. Other reevaluations have been in response to petitions from public interest organizations. BPA: A tale of two agenciesThe risk assessment of BPA — which has been linked to myriad health problems including cancer, diabetes, obesity, reproductive, immune system and nervous and behavioral problems — in food-contact materials is a good example of how two science-based agencies have made very different risk management decisions.EFSA conducted risk assessments of BPA in 2006, 2015 and 2023, each time at the request of the European Commission in response to new science. The second and third re-evaluations resulted in reductions in the daily allowed exposure of BPA due to new evidence showing greater harm to human health. To complete the process, the Commission recently published its proposed regulation of BPA, which includes a ban of most common uses in polycarbonate plastic and metal can coating.The FDA assessment of BPA has been riddled with missteps and lack of transparency. The FDA approved BPA for use in food contact applications in the early 1960s. It didn’t a draft safety assessment until 2008, at the request of its commissioner in light of findings by the National Toxicology Program and ongoing evaluations in Europe. FDA then asked its Science Board to review the draft and establish a subcommittee; there was also a public meeting and a report. The subcommittee, which included some members of the board and external experts, had several concerns about FDA’s assessment. In 2014, the FDA published a memo summarizing an updated safety assessment of BPA. The five-page memo cites the toxicology evaluation conducted in previous years and exposure assessment using an unpublished model. The agency concluded that the estimated consumption amount of BPA was safe to protect children and adults. This was the FDA's last safety assessment. Unlike the EFSA, the FDA process is less structured and open. At the FDA "it is also unclear how and by whom risk management decisions are made and whether the risk assessors are also involved in risk management."The FDA has conducted its own studies on BPA at different life stages and in different species. The agency was a member of the Consortium Linking Academic and Regulatory Insights on BPA Toxicity (CLARITY-BPA). Launched in 2012 by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Toxicology Program and the FDA, the aim of CLARITY was to combine a traditional regulatory toxicology study from the government and investigational studies from academics who wield more modern techniques. As part of CLARITY, the FDA also conducted a two-year guideline compliant study on BPA toxicity. In 2018, FDA concluded that “currently authorized uses of BPA continue to be safe for consumers.” This statement was based on the results of only the first year of the CLARITY two-year study conducted by FDA according to its toxicity guideline and did not include analysis of data produced by the multiple academic laboratories involved in the project. Furthermore, it was not based on an assessment of risk which also necessitates exposure data. Meanwhile, the results of CLARITY, including the academic studies largely ignored by the FDA, played an important role in EFSA’s latest BPA risk assessment. Unlike EFSA, the FDA has not made public the criteria applied to select the data, to evaluate and appraise the studies included in the hazard assessment, or the weight of evidence methodology used in its current reassessment of BPA. The lack of transparency was a concern previously expressed by FDA’s Science Board subcommittee in 2008.A “deep misunderstanding” of the risk assessment and management distinctionEFSA’s independence from risk management decisions and recruitment of independent experts to conduct risk assessments gives the agency the freedom to follow the science. By comparison, the FDA has stagnated.One explanation for such a difference would be FDA’s strong adherence to its historical decisions, rather than considering more recent science. This bias toward their own work is not conducive to change. Another explanation would be FDA scientists conflating risk assessment and risk management. In 2013, the FDA conducted a review of its chemical safety program and an external consultant noted that there appeared to be a “deep misunderstanding of the risk assessment – risk management distinction” among the staff. This observation is apparent in a commentary in Nature in 2010, where FDA toxicologists said that dismissing “out of hand” risk management factors such as economics, benefits of existing technologies, cost of replacing banned technologies and the toxic risk of any replacement “is, to say the least, insular, and surely imprudent in a regulatory setting.” The consultant added that FDA staff suggested that the agency “should not be too quick to adopt new scientific approaches.” Such an approach has likely deterred its scientists from acting on new evidence.FDA is undergoing a reorganization, including the creation of a new Human Food Program. Almost a year ago, the agency announced it was “embarking on a more modernized, systematic reassessment of chemicals with a focus on post-market review.” For this to be successful, the FDA should adopt updated processes and methods, include outside experts when it encounters challenging scientific or technical issues, increase collaboration with other agencies, and engage with stakeholders including consumers, academic institutions, public interest organizations and industry. But above all, the FDA must restore the public’s trust in the agency with a strong commitment to transparency in decision-making and clear separation between risk assessment and risk management.For more information check these summary tables.

Chemicals

Food

Health

Fiery 5,000 MPH Winds: Webb Maps Weather on Extreme Exoplanet WASP-43 b

WASP-43 b is cloudy on the nightside and clear on the dayside, with equatorial winds howling around the planet at 5,000 miles per hour. Sometimes...

This artist’s concept shows what the hot gas-giant exoplanet WASP-43 b could look like. WASP-43 b is a Jupiter-sized planet circling a star roughly 280 light-years away, in the constellation Sextans. The planet orbits at a distance of about 1.3 million miles (0.014 astronomical units, or AU), completing one circuit in about 19.5 hours. Because it is so close to its star, WASP-43 b is probably tidally locked: its rotation rate and orbital period are the same, such that one side faces the star at all times. Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Ralf Crawford (STScI)WASP-43 b is cloudy on the nightside and clear on the dayside, with equatorial winds howling around the planet at 5,000 miles per hour.Sometimes not finding something is just as exciting and useful as finding it. Take hot Jupiter WASP-43 b, for example. This tidally locked world has a searing-hot, permanent dayside and a somewhat cooler nightside. Astronomers using Webb to map the temperature and analyze the atmosphere around the planet expected to detect methane, a common carbon molecule, on the nightside. But there is clearly no sign of it. Why? The result suggests that supersonic winds of hot gas are blowing around from the dayside, thoroughly churning up the atmosphere, and preventing the chemical reactions that would otherwise produce methane on the nightside.This light curve shows the change in brightness of the WASP-43 system over time as the planet orbits the star. This type of light curve is known as a phase curve because it includes the entire orbit, or all phases of the planet.Because it is tidally locked, different sides of WASP-43 b rotate into view as it orbits. The system appears brightest when the hot dayside is facing the telescope, just before and after the secondary eclipse when the planet passes behind the star. The system grows dimmer as the planet continues its orbits and the nightside rotates into view. After the transit when the planet passes in front of the star, blocking some of the starlight, the system brightens again as the dayside rotates back into view.Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Ralf Crawford (STScI), Taylor Bell (BAERI), Joanna Barstow (The Open University), Michael Roman (University of Leicester)Webb Space Telescope Maps Weather on Planet 280 Light-Years AwayAn international team of researchers has successfully used NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope to map the weather on the hot gas-giant exoplanet WASP-43 b.Precise brightness measurements over a broad spectrum of mid-infrared light, combined with 3D climate models and previous observations from other telescopes, suggest the presence of thick, high clouds covering the nightside, clear skies on the dayside, and equatorial winds upwards of 5,000 miles per hour mixing atmospheric gases around the planet. The investigation is just the latest demonstration of the exoplanet science now possible with Webb’s extraordinary ability to measure temperature variations and detect atmospheric gases trillions of miles away.Tidally Locked “Hot Jupiter”WASP-43 b is a “hot Jupiter” type of exoplanet: similar in size to Jupiter, made primarily of hydrogen and helium, and much hotter than any of the giant planets in our own solar system. Although its star is smaller and cooler than the Sun, WASP-43 b orbits at a distance of just 1.3 million miles – less than 1/25th the distance between Mercury and the Sun.With such a tight orbit, the planet is tidally locked, with one side continuously illuminated and the other in permanent darkness. Although the nightside never receives any direct radiation from the star, strong eastward winds transport heat around from the dayside.Since its discovery in 2011, WASP-43 b has been observed with numerous telescopes, including NASA’s Hubble and now-retired Spitzer space telescopes.“With Hubble, we could clearly see that there is water vapor on the dayside. Both Hubble and Spitzer suggested there might be clouds on the nightside,” explained Taylor Bell, researcher from the Bay Area Environmental Research Institute and lead author of a study published on April 30 in Nature Astronomy. “But we needed more precise measurements from Webb to really begin mapping the temperature, cloud cover, winds, and more detailed atmospheric composition all the way around the planet.”This simplified diagram of an exoplanet phase curve shows the change in total brightness of a star–planet system as the planet orbits the star. The system looks brighter when more of the lit side of the planet is facing the telescope (full phase). It looks dimmer when more of the dark side is facing the telescope (new phase), when the planet is blocking some of the starlight (transit), and when light from the planet is blocked by the star (secondary eclipse).(Top) Diagram showing the change in a planet’s phase (the amount of the lit side facing the telescope) as it orbits its star.(Bottom) Three-dimensional graph showing the change in the total brightness of the star–planet system as the planet orbits its star. In this graph, known as a light curve, the horizontal plane is orbital location and the vertical axis is brightness.(Right) Scale bar. In both the orbital diagram and the light curve, color indicates the observed brightness of the star + planet: from dark purple (less amount of light detected) to white (more light detected).Researchers use phase curves to study variations in reflectivity and temperature of a planet with longitude (from one side to another), which can provide insight into the surface composition and atmospheric conditions of the planet.Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Dani Player (STScI), Andi James (STScI), Greg Bacon (STScI)Mapping Temperature and Inferring WeatherAlthough WASP-43 b is too small, dim, and close to its star for a telescope to see directly, its short orbital period of just 19.5 hours makes it ideal for phase curve spectroscopy, a technique that involves measuring tiny changes in brightness of the star-planet system as the planet orbits the star.Since the amount of mid-infrared light given off by an object depends largely on how hot it is, the brightness data captured by Webb can then be used to calculate the planet’s temperature.The team used Webb’s MIRI (Mid-Infrared Instrument) to measure light from the WASP-43 system every 10 seconds for more than 24 hours. “By observing over an entire orbit, we were able to calculate the temperature of different sides of the planet as they rotate into view,” explained Bell. “From that, we could construct a rough map of temperature across the planet.”The measurements show that the dayside has an average temperature of nearly 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit (1,250 degrees Celsius) – hot enough to forge iron. Meanwhile, the nightside is significantly cooler at 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit (600 degrees Celsius). The data also helps locate the hottest spot on the planet (the “hotspot”), which is shifted slightly eastward from the point that receives the most stellar radiation, where the star is highest in the planet’s sky. This shift occurs because of supersonic winds, which move heated air eastward.“The fact that we can map temperature in this way is a real testament to Webb’s sensitivity and stability,” said Michael Roman, a co-author from the University of Leicester in the U.K.To interpret the map, the team used complex 3D atmospheric models like those used to understand weather and climate on Earth. The analysis shows that the nightside is probably covered in a thick, high layer of clouds that prevent some of the infrared light from escaping to space. As a result, the nightside – while very hot – looks dimmer and cooler than it would if there were no clouds.This set of maps shows the temperature of the visible side of the hot gas-giant exoplanet WASP-43 b, as the planet orbits its star. The temperatures were calculated based on more than 8,000 brightness measurements of 5- to 12-micron mid-infrared light detected from the star-planet system by MIRI (the Mid-Infrared Instrument) on NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope. In general, the hotter an object is, the more mid-infrared light it gives off. Credit: NASA, ESA, CSA, Ralf Crawford (STScI), Taylor Bell (BAERI), Joanna Barstow (The Open University), Michael Roman (University of Leicester)Missing Methane and High WindsThe broad spectrum of mid-infrared light captured by Webb also made it possible to measure the amount of water vapor (H2O) and methane (CH4) around the planet. “Webb has given us an opportunity to figure out exactly which molecules we’re seeing and put some limits on the abundances,” said Joanna Barstow, a co-author from the Open University in the U.K.The spectra show clear signs of water vapor on the nightside as well as the dayside of the planet, providing additional information about how thick the clouds are and how high they extend in the atmosphere.Surprisingly, the data also shows a distinct lack of methane anywhere in the atmosphere. Although the dayside is too hot for methane to exist (most of the carbon should be in the form of carbon monoxide), methane should be stable and detectable on the cooler nightside.“The fact that we don’t see methane tells us that WASP-43 b must have wind speeds reaching something like 5,000 miles per hour,” explained Barstow. “If winds move gas around from the dayside to the nightside and back again fast enough, there isn’t enough time for the expected chemical reactions to produce detectable amounts of methane on the nightside.”The team thinks that because of this wind-driven mixing, the atmospheric chemistry is the same all the way around the planet, which wasn’t apparent from past work with Hubble and Spitzer.Reference: “Nightside clouds and disequilibrium chemistry on the hot Jupiter WASP-43b” by Taylor J. Bell, Nicolas Crouzet, Patricio E. Cubillos, Laura Kreidberg, Anjali A. A. Piette, Michael T. Roman, Joanna K. Barstow, Jasmina Blecic, Ludmila Carone, Louis-Philippe Coulombe, Elsa Ducrot, Mark Hammond, João M. Mendonça, Julianne I. Moses, Vivien Parmentier, Kevin B. Stevenson, Lucas Teinturier, Michael Zhang, Natalie M. Batalha, Jacob L. Bean, Björn Benneke, Benjamin Charnay, Katy L. Chubb, Brice-Olivier Demory, Peter Gao, Elspeth K. H. Lee, Mercedes López-Morales, Giuseppe Morello, Emily Rauscher, David K. Sing, Xianyu Tan, Olivia Venot, Hannah R. Wakeford, Keshav Aggarwal, Eva-Maria Ahrer, Munazza K. Alam, Robin Baeyens, David Barrado, Claudio Caceres, Aarynn L. Carter, Sarah L. Casewell, Ryan C. Challener, Ian J. M. Crossfield, Leen Decin, Jean-Michel Désert, Ian Dobbs-Dixon, Achrène Dyrek, Néstor Espinoza, Adina D. Feinstein, Neale P. Gibson, Joseph Harrington, Christiane Helling, Renyu Hu, Nicolas Iro, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Sarah Kendrew, Thaddeus D. Komacek, Jessica Krick, Pierre-Olivier Lagage, Jérémy Leconte, Monika Lendl, Neil T. Lewis, Joshua D. Lothringer, Isaac Malsky, Luigi Mancini, Megan Mansfield, Nathan J. Mayne, Thomas M. Evans-Soma, Karan Molaverdikhani, Nikolay K. Nikolov, Matthew C. Nixon, Enric Palle, Dominique J. M. Petit dit de la Roche, Caroline Piaulet, Diana Powell, Benjamin V. Rackham, Aaron D. Schneider, Maria E. Steinrueck, Jake Taylor, Luis Welbanks, Sergei N. Yurchenko, Xi Zhang and Sebastian Zieba, 30 April 2024, Nature Astronomy.DOI: 10.1038/s41550-024-02230-xThe MIRI observation of WASP-43 b was conducted as part of the Webb Early Release Science programs, which are providing researchers with a vast set of robust, open-access data for studying a wide array of cosmic phenomena.The James Webb Space Telescope is the world’s premier space science observatory. Webb is solving mysteries in our solar system, looking beyond to distant worlds around other stars, and probing the mysterious structures and origins of our universe and our place in it. Webb is an international program led by NASA with its partners, ESA (European Space Agency) and the Canadian Space Agency.

Chemicals

Climate

Nature

We think we control our health – but corporations selling forever chemicals, fossil fuels and ultra-processed foods have a much greater role

Corporations have an incentive to make profits – even if their products hurt or even kill people. Here’s how to stop history repeating.

shutterstock Ahmet Misirligul/ShutterstockYou go to the gym, eat healthy and walk as much as possible. You wash your hands and get vaccinated. You control your health. This is a common story we tell ourselves. Unfortunately, it’s not quite true. Factors outside our control have huge influence – especially products which can sicken or kill us, made by companies and sold routinely. For instance, you and your family have been exposed for decades to dangerous forever chemicals, some of which are linked to kidney and testicular cancers. You’re almost certainly carrying these chemicals, known as PFAS or forever chemicals, in your body right now. And that’s just the start. We now know exposure to just four classes of product – tobacco, alcohol, ultra-processed foods and fossil fuels – are linked to one out of every three deaths worldwide. That is, they’re implicated in 19 of the world’s 56 million deaths each year (as of 2019). Pollution – largely from fossil fuels – is now the single largest environmental cause of premature death. Communities of colour and low-income communities experience disproportionate impacts; For example, over 90% of pollution related deaths occur in low middle income countries. This means the leading risk factor for disease and death worldwide is corporations who make, market and sell these unhealthy products. Worse, even when these corporations become aware of the harms their products cause, they have often systematically hidden these harms to boost profits at the expense of our health. Major tobacco, oil, food, pharmaceutical and chemical corporations have all applied similar techniques, privatising the profits and spreading the harms. Tobacco companies long questioned the link between smoking and cancer. Nopphon_1987/Shutterstock Profit and loss statements When companies act to conceal the harm their products do, they prevent us from protecting ourselves and our children. We now have many well-documented cases of corporate wrongdoing, such as asbestos, fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides) sugar, silica, and of course tobacco. In these instances, corporations intentionally manufactured doubt or hid the harms of their products to delay or prevent regulation and maintain profits. Decades of empirical evidence shows these effective tactics have actually been shared and strategically passed from one industry or company to the next. For instance, when large tobacco companies Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds bought food companies Kraft, General Foods and Nabisco in the 1980s, tobacco executives brought across marketing strategies, flavouring and colourings to expand product lines and engineered fatty, sweet and salty hyperpalatable foods such as cookies, cereals and frozen foods linked to obesity and diet-related diseases. These foods activate our reward circuits and encourage us to consume more. Or consider how ‘forever chemicals’ became so widespread. A team of scientists (including this article’s co-author) investigated previously secret internal industry documents from 3M and DuPont, the largest makers of forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS. The documents showed both 3M and DuPont used tactics from the tobacco industry’s playbook, such as suppressing unfavourable research and distorting public debate. Like Big Tobacco, 3M and DuPont had a financial interest in suppressing scientific evidence of the harms of their products, while publicly declaring in-demand products such as Teflon were safe. For decades, forever chemicals PFOA and PFOS have been used to make Teflon pans, Scotchgard, firefighting foam and other non-stick materials. By the early 2000s, one of these, PFOS, ended up in our blood at 20 times the level its manufacturer, 3M, considered safe. As early as 1961, the chief toxicologist at DuPont’s Teflon subsidiary reported the company’s wonder-material had “the ability to increase the size of the liver of rats at low doses”, and recommended the chemicals be handled “with extreme care”. According to a 1970 internal memo, the DuPont-funded Haskell Laboratory found the chemical class C8 (now known as PFOA/PFOS) was “highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested”. Teflon was hailed as a wonder material, making non-stick pans possible. But the original chemicals used to make Teflon were dangerous. Minko Dima/Shutterstock Both 3M and DuPont did extensive internal research on the risks their products posed to humans, but they shared little of it. The risks of PFOA including pregnancy-induced hypertension, kidney and testicular cancers, and ulcerative colitis was not publicly established until 2011. Now, 60 years after DuPont first learned of the harms these products could cause, many countries are facing the human and environmental consequences and a very expensive cleanup. Even though the production of PFOA and PFOS is being phased out, forever chemicals are easily stored in the body and take decades to break down. Worse, PFOA and PFOS are just two of over 15,000 different PFAS chemicals, most of which are still in use. How can we prevent corporate injury to our health? My co-author and I work in the field known as commercial determinants of health, which is to say, the damage corporations can do to us. Corporate wrongdoing can directly injure or even kill us. One of the key ways companies have been able to avoid regulation and lawsuits is by hiding the evidence. Internal studies showing harm can be easily hidden. External studies can be influenced, either by corporate funding, business-friendly scientists, legal action or lobbying policymakers to avoid regulation. Here are three ways to prevent this happening again: 1) Require corporations to adhere to the same standards of data sharing and open science as independent scientists do. If a corporation wants to bring a new product to market, they should have to register and publicly release every study they plan to conduct on its harms so the public can see the results of the study. 2) Sever the financial links between industry and researchers or policymakers. Many large corporations will spend money on public studies to try to get favourable outcomes for their own interests. To cut these financial ties means boosting public health research, either through government funding or alternatives such as a tax on corporate marketing. It would also mean capping corporate political donations and bringing lobbying under control by restricting corporate access and spending to policymakers and increasing transparency. And it would mean stopping the revolving door where government employees or policymakers work for the industry they used to regulate once they leave office. 3) Mandate public transparency of corporate funding to researchers and policymakers. In 2010, the United States introduced laws to enforce transparency on how much medical and pharmaceutical companies were spending to influence the products doctors chose to use. Research using the data unearthed by these laws has shown the problem is pervasive. We need this model for other industries so we can clearly see where corporate money is going. Registries should be detailed, permanent and easy to search. These steps would not be easy. But the status quo means corporations can keep selling dangerous or lethal products for much longer than they should. In doing so, they have become one of the largest influences on our health and will continue to harm generations to come – in ways hard to counter with yoga and willpower. And your health is more important than corporate profits. Read more: Chemicals, forever: how do you fix a problem like PFAS? Nicholas Chartres receives funding from The JPB Foundation, The World Health Organization and Health CanadaLisa Bero received or receives funding from Cochrane, NHMRC, Health Canada, the State of Colorado.

Chemicals

Food

Health

The impacts of toxic 'forever chemicals' aren't the same for women, men

This story is part of a series, “Fighting ‘Forever Chemicals’: Women face pervasive PFAS risks.” While “forever chemicals” have been linked to numerous adverse health impacts from cancers to kidney disease, they also may have disparate impacts on male and female bodies. “Very often you see something in one sex and not the other sex,”...

This story is part of a series, “Fighting ‘Forever Chemicals’: Women face pervasive PFAS risks.” While “forever chemicals” have been linked to numerous adverse health impacts from cancers to kidney disease, they also may have disparate impacts on male and female bodies. “Very often you see something in one sex and not the other sex,” said Linda Birnbaum, former head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences and the National Toxicology Program. “Forever chemicals,” or PFAS, can be found in many common household products and certain kinds of firefighting foams. Their use in manufacturing has led their proliferation in the air, water and soil, and they are estimated to be in the blood of about 97 percent of Americans. The federal government recently set the first nationwide limits on a few types of these substances in drinking water. Some of the different ways the pervasive chemicals affect men and women are clearly tied to reproductive organs. PFAS exposure is associated with an increased risk of testicular cancer, for example: A panel of scientists established in 2012 that there is a “probable link” between exposure to a type of PFAS called PFOA and testicular cancer. A January 2022 Toxicology review explored several issues related to the female reproductive system — such as birth defects, fertility and menstrual cycle changes — that could be connected to PFAS exposure. “The effects are many,” the authors found, though they said it’s not yet clear exactly how the substances target female endocrine and reproductive systems due to “a major research gap.” A study published in September sought to narrow that gap by zooming in on sex-specific relationships between three classes of probable endocrine disruptors — including PFAS — and previous diagnoses of hormone-related cancers. The scientists observed particularly striking indications of these differences with regard to melanoma: Higher blood levels of PFAS were linked to prior diagnoses in women, but not in men. “Sex-specific associations between PFAS chemicals and previous melanoma diagnosis, suggest that sex-mediated mechanisms may be at play,” wrote the authors, from the University of Southern California and the University of Michigan. While the precise mechanism behind the melanoma connection is still uncertain, the scientists surmised that because these tumor cells have estrogen receptors, environmental contaminants that mimic estrogenic activity — such as PFAS, potentially — could be fueling the cancer’s growth in women. Similar to melanoma, other health impacts that aren’t so obviously tied to sex-specific characteristics may still affect men and women differently following exposure to environmental contaminants, such as PFAS. High blood pressure, for instance, appears to be more pronounced in women than in men, recent studies have revealed. Sometimes, this manifests in pregnancy-induced hypertension, which can lead to a potentially fatal condition called preeclampsia — a potential effect of PFAS exposure that Erin P. Hines, a researcher in the Environmental Protection Agency’s reproductive toxicology division, said she’s eager to see more research into. “Having preeclampsia or having pregnancy-induced hypertension during pregnancy can change a woman's health outcome for the rest of her life, putting her more at risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes like stroke,” Hines said, noting that this risk is independent of PFAS exposure. “But if you have a pregnancy where you have preeclampsia or one of these hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, over your lifetime, there are increased risks of morbidity and mortality associated [with] cardiovascular events,” she added. Beyond the pregnancy-induced type, additional research has also identified hypertension in the PFAS-exposed female population broadly. A 2022 study from the American Heart Association found that middle-aged women with higher blood levels of certain types of PFAS had a greater risk of hypertension. Analyzing the annual follow-up visits of 1,058 midlife women who were initially free of hypertension from 1999 to 2017, the scientists found that 470 individuals developed this condition. The authors determined that women ages 45-56 who had high concentrations of PFOS in their blood had a 42 percent higher chance of developing high blood pressure, while those with high concentrations of PFOA had a 47 percent higher chance. Women who had high concentrations of all seven types of PFAS examined by the study had a 71 percent increased risk of getting high blood pressure. Study author Ning Ding said PFAS exposure appears to put women at especially high risk in a broader way, as well. “Women seem to be particularly vulnerable when exposed to these chemicals,” Ding, a postdoctoral fellow in the University of Michigan’s epidemiology department, said in a statement. “Exposure may be an underappreciated risk factor for women’s cardiovascular disease risk.” Studies are also emerging that suggest links between PFAS and other health outcomes in girls or women, such as ADHD in girls or weight gain in women. Scientists have also linked PFAS exposure to an increased susceptibility of developing diabetes among middle-aged women. Some types of PFAS could disrupt the regulatory behavior of certain protein molecules and, in turn, raise the risk of diabetes within this cohort, according to the April 2022 study. Although the researchers stressed that evidence of sex-dependent links between PFAS and diabetes in humans is lacking, they pointed to another recent study showing that the metabolic responses of female mice to PFOA exposure were greater than those of male mice. Meanwhile, another impact from PFAS has been shown to primarily affect boys. A 2022 study found that teen boys who are exposed to a mixture of the substances and another type of hormone-disrupting chemicals known as phthalates may have lower bone density — which makes bones weaker and more prone to fractures. Some vulnerabilities associated with PFAS may take root in utero. Prenatal exposure to the substances has been linked to preterm births, changes in birth weight or congenital issues that manifest later in childhood — including ADHD or IQ effects, according to Birnbaum. “We are seeing with PFAS — like a lot of chemicals which actually disturb hormone systems — that you do get a boy or girl difference,” she said, noting that some effects are appearing in only one sex. “If you look at, say, baby boys and baby girls together, you might not see an effect. But if you separate out the sexes, all of a sudden you can see an effect in one of them,” Birnbaum added. But she also acknowledged that not all researchers are open to that type of separation: “What's interesting to me is that there are some people who don't want to believe that. They think, well, if you don't see it in both, you know, males and females, it can't be happening.” The discovery of sex-dependent health impacts often hinges upon what, exactly, scientists are looking for in their research, according to Birnbaum. “It's kind of the old story: If you don't look, you don't see. But when you start to look, you start to find.”

Chemicals

Health

Science

Op-ed: After decades of disinformation, the US finally begins regulating PFAS chemicals

Earlier this month, the Environmental Protection Agency announced it would regulate two forms of PFAS contamination under Superfund laws reserved for “the nation’s worst hazardous waste sites.”EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the action will ensure that “polluters pay for the costs to clean up pollution threatening the health of communities.”That was an encore to the Food and Drug Administration announcing in February that companies will phase out food packaging with PFAS wrappings and the mid-April announcement by Regan that the EPA was establishing the first-ever federal limits on PFAS in drinking water. At that time, he declared, “We are one huge step closer to finally shutting off the tap on forever chemicals once and for all.”One can forever hope the tap will be eventually shut, since it took seemingly forever for the nation to begin to crack down on this class of per-and polyfluoroalkyl synthetic chemicals. The chemical bonds of PFAS, among the strongest ever created, resulted in an incredible ability to resist heat, moisture, grease and stains. PFAS chemicals seemed like miracle substances in the 20th-century quest for convenience. They became ubiquitous in household furnishings, cookware, cosmetics, and fast-food packaging, and a key component of many firefighting foams. “We are one huge step closer to finally shutting off the tap on forever chemicals once and for all.” - EPA Administrator Michael Regan The bonds are so indestructible they would impress Superman. They don’t break down in the environment for thousands of years, hence the “forever” nickname. Unfortunately for humans, the same properties represent Kryptonite. Today, the group of chemicals known as PFAS is the source of one of the greatest contaminations of drinking water in the nation’s history. Flowing from industrial sites, landfills, military bases, airports, and wastewater treatment discharges, PFAS chemicals, according to the United States Geological Survey, are detectable in nearly half our tap water. Other studies suggest that a majority of the U.S. population drinks water containing PFAS chemicals—as many as 200 million people, according to a 2020 peer-reviewed study conducted by the Environmental Working Group. PFAS chemicals are everywhereNo one escapes PFAS chemicals. They make it into the kitchen or onto the dining room table in the form of non-stick cookware, microwave popcorn bags, fast-food burger wrappers, candy wrappers, beverage cups, take-out containers, pastry bags, French-fry and pizza boxes. They reside throughout homes in carpeting, upholstery, paints, and solvents.They are draped on our bodies in “moisture-wicking” gym tights, hiking gear, yoga pants, sports bras, and rain and winter jackets. They are on our feet in waterproof shoes and boots. Children have PFAS in baby bedding and school uniforms. Athletes of all ages play on PFAS on artificial turf. PFAS chemicals are on our skin and gums through eye, lip, face cosmetics, and dental floss. Firefighters have it in their protective clothing.As a result, nearly everyone in the United States has detectable levels of PFAS in their bodies. There is no known safe level of human exposure to these chemicals. They are linked to multiple cancers, decreased fertility in women, developmental delays in children, high cholesterol, and damage to the cardiovascular and immune systems. A 2022 study by researchers from Harvard Medical School and Sichuan University in China estimated that exposure to one form of PFAS (PFOS, for perfluorooctane sulfonic acid), may have played a role in the deaths of more than 6 million people in the United States between 1999 and 2018.As sweeping as PFAS contamination is, exposures in the United States are also marked by clear patterns of environmental injustice and a betrayal to military families. An analysis by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that people of color and low-income people were more likely to live near non-military sources of PFAS contamination than wealthier, white people.Another study by UCS found that 118 of 131 military bases had PFAS contamination concentrations at least 10 times higher than federal risk levels. A federal study last year found a higher risk of testicular cancer for Air Force servicemen engaged in firefighting with PFAS foams.Tobacco-like disinformationIn the end, the whole nation was betrayed, in a manner straight out of the tobacco disinformation playbook. Behind the image of convenience, manufacturers long knew that PFAS chemicals were toxic. Internal documents uncovered over the years show how DuPont and 3M, the two biggest legacy makers of PFAS, knew back in the 1960s that the compounds built up in blood and enlarged the livers of laboratory animals. By 1970, a DuPont document referring to a PFAS chemical under its famed “Teflon” trademark said that it “is highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when injected.”By the late 1970s, DuPont was discovering that PFAS chemicals were affecting the liver of workers and that plant employees were having myocardial infarctions at levels “somewhat higher than expected.” But that did not stop the industry from downplaying the risk to workers.One internal 3M document in 1980 claimed that PFAS chemicals have “a lower toxicity like table salt.” Yet, a study last year of documents by researchers at the University of California San Francisco and the University of Colorado found that DuPont, internally tracking the outcome of worker pregnancies in 1980 and 1981, recorded two cases of birth defects in infants. Yet, in 1981, in what the researchers determined was a “joint” communication to employees of DuPont and 3M, the companies claimed: “We know of no evidence of birth defects” at DuPont and were “not knowledgeable about the pregnancy outcome” of employees at 3M who were exposed to PFAS. The same suppression and disinformation kept government regulators at bay for decades. The San Francisco and Colorado researchers found internal DuPont documents from 1961 to 1994 showing toxicity in animal and occupational studies that were never reported to the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act. As one example, DuPont, according to a 2022 feature by Politico’s Energy and Environment News, successfully negotiated in the 1960s with the Food and Drug Administration to keep lower levels of PFAS-laden food wrapping and containers on the market despite evidence of enlarged livers in laboratory rats.A patchwork responseEventually, the deception and lies exploded in the face of the companies, as independent scientists found more and more dire connections to PFAS in drinking water and human health and lawsuits piled up in the courts. Last year, 3M agreed to a settlement of between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion for PFAS contamination in water systems around the nation. DuPont and other companies agreed to another $1.2 billion in settlements. That’s not nothing, but it is a relatively small price to pay for two industrial behemoths that have been among the Fortune 500 every year since 1955.In the last two decades, the continuing science on PFAS chemicals and growing public concern has led to a patchwork of individual apparel and food companies to say they will stop using PFAS in clothes and wrapping. Some states have enacted their own drinking water limits and are moving forward with legislation to restrict or ban products containing PFAS. In 2006, the EPA began a voluntary program in which the leading PFAS manufacturers in the United States agreed to stop manufacturing PFOA, one of the most concerning forms of PFAS.But companies had a leisurely decade to meet commitments. Even as companies negotiated, a DuPont document assumed coziness with the EPA. “We need the EPA to quickly (like first thing tomorrow) say the following: Consumer products sold under the Teflon brand are safe. . .there are no human health effects to be caused by PFOA [a chemical in the PFAS family].”Two years ago, 3M announced it will end the manufacture of PFAS chemicals and discontinue their application across its portfolio by the end of next year. But the company did so with an insulting straight face, saying on its products are “safe and effective for their intended uses in everyday life.”EPA action finally, but more is neededThe nation can no longer accept the overall patchwork or industry weaning itself off PFAS at its own pace. The EPA currently plans to issue drinking water limits for six forms of PFAS and place two forms under Superfund jurisdiction. The Superfund designation gives the government its strongest powers to enforce cleanups that would be paid for by polluters instead of taxpayers.”But there are 15,000 PFAS compounds, according to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. There is nothing to stop companies from trying to play around with other compounds that could also prove harmful. Cleaning up the PFAS chemicals that have already been allowed will take billions of dollars and water utilities around the country are already screaming, with some justification, that the federal government needs to provide more money than it is offering. And even the Superfund designation does not actually ban their use.It would be better if the United States were to follow the lead of the European Union, which is now considering a ban or major restrictions on the whole class of chemicals, fearing that “without taking action, their concentrations will continue to increase, and their toxic and polluting effects will be difficult to reverse.”The effects are scary to quantify. Regan said in his drinking water announcement that the new rules would improve water quality for 100 million people and “prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses across the country.” A draft EPA economic analysis last year predicted that tight standards could save more than 7,300 lives alone from bladder cancer, kidney cancer and cardiovascular diseases, and avoid another 27,000 non-fatal cases of those diseases.That makes it high time that the federal government borrow from DuPont’s arrogant assumption that it could push around the EPA. We need the EPA to quickly (like first thing tomorrow) say the following: Consumer products with PFAS are not safe and are causing unacceptable environmental consequences. We are shutting off the tap on ALL of them.”

Chemicals

Animals

Food

Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

GoGreenNation news