Understanding PFAS: A Look at the Awareness and Impact on U.S. Drinking Water

Water poured into a clear glass.
Water poured into a clear glass.

The presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in U.S. drinking water has emerged as a critical environmental and public health issue. Despite increasing media coverage and governmental attention, a significant gap exists in the general public’s understanding of PFAS. An exploratory study by Texas A&M AgriLife scientists and published in PLoS ONE, aimed to bridge this gap by assessing public awareness regarding PFAS and their potential impact on community health and drinking water.

Key Findings of the Nationwide Survey

  • Limited Public Awareness: Alarmingly, nearly half of the respondents (45.1%) were unfamiliar with PFAS. Additionally, 31.6% had heard of PFAS but lacked an understanding of what it entails.
     
  • Perception of Drinking Water Safety: A striking 97.4% did not believe their drinking water was affected by PFAS, indicating a disconnect between public perception and environmental realities.
     
  • Community Exposure as a Predictor: Awareness due to known community exposure emerged as the strongest predictor of PFAS awareness. Those aware of community exposure were more informed about PFAS sources and likely to change their product usage habits.

PFAS: An Overview

PFAS, often termed “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and in our bodies, are resistant to water, grease, and heat and found in a range of everyday products including food packaging, clothing, cosmetics, and toilet paper. PFAS have been widely used in various industrial processes and consumer products since the 1940s. Their presence in products ranging from non-stick cookware to fire extinguishing foams raises significant environmental concerns, particularly in water sources. The resistance of PFAS to degradation leads to bioaccumulation, posing serious health risks such as cancer, hormone disruption, liver damage, weakened immune systems, and reproductive harm.

Regulatory Response and Public Health Implications

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recently proposed stricter regulations to limit PFAS in drinking water, reducing the maximum contaminant levels from 70 parts per trillion (ppt) to 4 ppt. This move, coupled with significant financial settlements from major corporations for PFAS clean-up, highlights the urgency of addressing PFAS contamination. However, the public’s limited awareness and understanding hinder effective response and mitigation efforts.

The Gap in Public Perception and Knowledge

The importance of knowing about PFAS lies in the need to understand the potential health risks associated with exposure to these substances. The general public’s awareness and knowledge of PFAS have been found to be limited, with only about half of the respondents in a nationwide survey stating they were aware of PFAS as an environmental contaminant. This study underscores a critical gap in public awareness and understanding of PFAS. This lack of awareness extends to the potential contamination of their primary drinking water sources.

Community exposure was identified as the strongest predicting factor regarding the level of public knowledge and awareness of PFAS and its sources. Therefore, it is crucial to provide accurate, real-time data on PFAS exposure to empower consumers to make informed decisions and take necessary precautions. Additionally, clear labeling of PFAS products is essential to allow consumers to be aware of their exposure frequency and make adjustments in product use as desired.

The Role of Effective Communication

Government agencies, research organizations, universities, utilities, and scientific institutions must collaborate to provide clear, accessible, and actionable information about PFAS, their sources, and health implications. This effort should aim to make the information relevant and understandable to the general public, encouraging informed decision-making and behavioral changes to reduce PFAS exposure. Manufacturers should clearly label their products with the presence of PFAS. This transparency allows consumers to be aware of their exposure frequency and make adjustments in product use. Consumers may want to install point-of-use treatment devices, such as under-sink or countertop filters, in their homes to remove PFAS from drinking water. These devices often use activated carbon or reverse osmosis technology to effectively reduce PFAS levels.


Source: Berthold TA, McCrary A, deVilleneuve S, Schramm M (2023) Let’s talk about PFAS: Inconsistent public awareness about PFAS and its sources in the United States. PLoS ONE 18(11): e0294134.

Join the global movement: Combat plastic pollution this World Environment Day, June 5th

Theme:Finding solutions to plastic pollution
Date:June 5th, 2023
Host:Côte d’Ivoire in collaboration with the Netherlands
Hashtags:#BeatPlasticPollution and #WorldEnvironmentDay

June 5th, 2023, will mark the 50th anniversary of World Environment Day, which was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1973. This year, the event is anticipated to attract tens of millions of participants both online and through in-person activities, embodying the spirit of environmental advocacy.

Addressing plastic pollution

This year’s theme is focused on finding solutions to plastic pollution. The occasion underscores the consequences of actions and inaction taken by individuals, businesses, and governments in response to plastic pollution. It also highlights the pressing need to amplify these efforts and transition towards a circular economy. To assist in these efforts, a Beat Plastic Pollution Practical Guide is available, outlining steps to halt and reverse the detrimental effects of plastic pollution.

An urgent need

Our planet is in crisis, besieged by the overwhelming weight of plastic waste. Despite its numerous applications, plastic has become detrimental due to our dependence on single-use plastic products, which cause significant environmental and health issues.

As per the UN, globally, one million plastic bottles are bought every minute, up to five trillion plastic bags are used each year, and 400 million tonnes of plastic waste are produced annually. Approximately 36% of all plastic is used for packaging, including single-use items for food and beverage containers. Sadly, around 85% of these items end up in landfills or as unregulated waste. Less than 10% of the seven billion tonnes of plastic waste generated worldwide has been recycled. The most prevalent types of plastic waste found in the environment include cigarette butts, food wrappers, plastic bottles and caps, grocery bags, straws, and stirrers.

Environmental harm

Plastic waste can persist in the environment for centuries due to its durability and resistance to degradation. Nearly all single-use plastic products are manufactured from fossil fuels, contributing to the escalation of greenhouse gas emissions. Most plastic items merely break down into smaller microplastics, which can infiltrate the human body and accumulate in various organs. The impact of this phenomenon on human health remains largely unknown. Microplastics are now ubiquitous and are a part of the Earth’s fossil record. They have even led to the creation of a new marine microbial habitat, known as the “plastisphere.”

How you can help

Urge your local and national leaders to take decisive action by eliminating problematic plastic packaging, redesigning products for sustainability, and promoting transparency in sustainability information. Additionally, you can participate in beach or river clean-ups, shop sustainably, adopt a zero-waste lifestyle, advocate for change, choose sustainable fashion, and opt for plastic-free personal care products.

Spread awareness and inspire others via social media using the hashtags #BeatPlasticPollution and #WorldEnvironmentDay.

Our food systems are failing. Can trees and forests dish up better diets for everyone?

VI Agroforestry in Masaka, Uganda. September 2013. NatureDan, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
VI Agroforestry in Masaka, Uganda. September 2013. NatureDan, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Scientists argue for greater inclusion of trees and forests in the race to transform global food systems.

By Monica Evans, Forests News (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0)

Despite all of the technological and informational advancements of recent decades, we’ve so far failed to feed our global population sufficiently, safely, nutritiously and sustainably.

Over 2 billion people experience food insecurity; almost 700 million are undernourished; and 39% of all adults are classified as overweight or obese.

A significant factor in these health challenges is that there’s a serious lack of food diversity: just 15 crops provide 90% of humanity’s energy intake and not enough nutrient-rich foods are being produced to go around. For instance, just 40 countries, representing 26% of the global population, have a sufficient supply of fruits and vegetables to meet recommended daily consumption.

Meanwhile, our global food system generates more than a third of global anthropogenic greenhouse-gas emissions; takes around 70% of all freshwater withdrawals; and is to blame for about a quarter of ocean acidification, alongside serious soil depletion and the destruction of natural habitats and biodiversity.

“It is increasingly evident that nothing short of a radical transformation of food systems will end global hunger and malnutrition while reversing to acceptable limits the environmental damage our food systems have already caused,” state the authors of a new Viewpoint in the July 2022 edition of leading journal, Lancet Planet Health. “A new global food system must produce greater quantities of a more diverse range of nutrient-dense foods rather than only providing more calories. It must also produce these diverse foodstuffs sustainably, reversing current trajectories of land degradation so that production acts as a net carbon sink and reservoir of biodiversity.”

So, how can we help to bring that shift into being?

As the authors highlight, trees and forests have a critical role to play.

To date, this has been largely overlooked in food-system transformation conversations “because of the absence of a comprehensive and system-wide approach to food systems, problems related to measuring and recording multiple contributions from trees and forests, and a focus on forests as sources of timber rather than food… A perspective we consider to be in danger of being mistakenly replicated in current discourses in the international development community that see trees and forests primarily as global carbon stores,” write the authors.

So, how can we help to bring that shift into being? As the Viewpoint highlights, trees and forests represent a critical, but as-yet-underacknowledged, part of the solution.

“We’ve been surprised and disappointed that despite all that we have learned and what seem to us to be the obvious important roles of forests and trees, that they still seem to be largely ignored,” said Amy Ickowitz, the study’s lead author and a senior scientist with the Center for International Forestry Research and World Agroforestry (CIFOR-ICRAF).

“Conserving forests and promoting trees for food security and nutrition are some of the obvious ways to achieve ‘win-wins’, which are quite rare in addressing the tremendous challenges of global malnutrition, dwindling biodiversity, and climate change,” she said. “Of course, there are obstacles — institutional, economic, and logistical — but these can all be addressed, once there is agreement that food systems should be nudged in this direction. In our Viewpoint we offer some suggestions of how to do this”

Silent service-providers

The authors draw attention to the multiple ways that trees and forests already contribute towards healthy diets and sustainable food systems. Tree cover, for instance, has been linked to greater dietary diversity and higher consumption of nutrient-rich foods, such as fruits and vegetables. All nuts, and over half of all human-consumed fruits, grow on trees. Forests provide particularly important sources of wild foods — including fruits, vegetables and meat — for the 1.6 billion people around the globe who live within 5 kilometres of them. Trees and forests also provide fodder for animals, supporting the production of meat and milk.

Trees and forests also provide wood fuels, which are a critical source of energy for cooking for around 2.4 billion people, thus, enabling the consumption of nutrient-rich foods such as meats and legumes. They also provide incomes that can support food security and nutrition, such as through cultivating and selling tree crops like coffee and cocoa; employment in logging or ecotourism; and collecting and selling non-timber forest products. Agriculture benefits from the ecosystem services provided by trees and forests, such as pest and disease regulation, pollinator habitat, micro-climate control, water and nutrient cycling, carbon sequestration, protection against soil erosion, and nitrogen fixation.

What’s more, trees and forests contribute to the stability and resilience of food systems, for example, through their tendency to survive extreme weather events better than annual crops; their role in supporting ‘lean-season’ diets through the provision of wild foods; their ability to fill seasonal gaps in food production; and the ‘safety net’ they provide in terms of offering wood and non-wood products that can be sold for income.

“Whether directly consumed as food or sold for food purchases, forest and tree products are, in many cases, the only resources accessible to women and other marginalized groups when hardship strikes and are therefore key resources to reduce their vulnerabilities,” state the authors.

Areas for intervention

To maximize the multiple benefits of including trees and forests more broadly and explicitly in food-system transformation, the authors list four key areas for intervention. First, they recommend building on current knowledge by increasing the scale of existing tree-based agricultural system solutions. Many of these solutions are not yet being adopted at sufficient scales to make decisive impact but could do so with appropriate support. This will in many cases require secure tree and land tenure, “which is not yet the case for many tree growers,” they write.

“To be effective, measures to increase land-tenure security should be connected with incentives for sustainable practices, including for tree maintenance on farms.”

Drivers for the adoption of agroforestry measures were also found to be highly context-specific, highlighting the importance of working with, and building on, existing local knowledge in any kind of agroforestry intervention.

Second, the authors recommend reorienting agricultural investments from staple crops to more diverse, nutrient-dense foods.

Over the past half-century, staple crops — such as wheat, maize and rice — have received billions of dollars in investment, which has enhanced their productivity and decreased their purchase prices in comparison to those of more nutritionally-important foods such as fruits, nuts and vegetables. In order to increase consumption of these, it will be critical to improve their productivity and lower their costs, alongside using education and social marketing to raise awareness of the health and environmental benefits of better food choices.

Third, there is a need to repurpose producer and consumer incentives towards nutrient-dense foods and more sustainable production practices. This will require policy shifts at both national and international levels. Currently, incentives such as direct price support and targeted fertiliser subsidies distort production towards staple crops.

“These incentives should be reduced or removed and direct and indirect price interventions by governments, which are designed to consider more closely both nutritional needs and environmental impacts, should be implemented,” write the authors.

Such subsidies could be reoriented towards producing nutrient-rich foods and integrating trees on farms.

Fourth, food and nutrition objectives ought to be explicitly integrated into forest restoration and conservation practices and policies. The global forest restoration agenda has to date been largely dominated by carbon-mitigation considerations. However, restoration initiatives that focus too narrowly on that objective — and neglect the needs of local people — often fail. Planting food trees, write the authors, could help to address multiple objectives at once, supporting local involvement and sustainable livelihoods alongside carbon sequestration.

As the authors make clear, trees and forests already contribute positively to diets and ecosystems across the globe and there is potential to scale up those contributions much further to address our multiple crises.