What do a pizza box, a polar bear and you have in common?
All carry a kind of industrial toxicant called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances, or PFASs, that do two things: They make life convenient and they also appear to increase the risk of cancer.
The scientists I interviewed say that they try to avoid these chemicals in their daily lives, but they are pretty much unavoidable and are now found in animals all over the planet (including polar bears in Greenland and probably you and me).
Illustration: Yusha
PFASs are used to make nonstick frying pans, waterproof clothing, stain-resistant fabrics, fast-food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, firefighting foam and thousands of other products. Many are unlabeled, so even chemists sometimes feel helpless.
This should be a moment when governments step up to protect citizens. However, from tobacco to lead paint to chemicals, industry has used donations, obfuscation and lobbying to defer regulation until the human casualties are too vast to be hidden.
PFASs are “a poster child” for what is wrong with chemical regulation in the US, says John Peterson Myers, chief scientist of Environmental Health Sciences, a research and publishing group in Virginia. PFASs are just about indestructible, so, for eons to come, they will poison our blood, our household dust, our water and the breast milk our babies drink.
Warnings of health risks from PFASs go back half a century and are growing more ominous. Last month, more than 200 scientists released a Madrid Statement warning of PFASs’ severe health risks. It was published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a peer-reviewed journal backed by the US National Institutes of Health.
The scientists cited research linking PFASs to testicular and kidney cancer, hypothyroidism, ulcerative colitis and other problems.
Arlene Blum is a chemist whose warnings about carcinogens have proved prophetic. In recent years, she has waged an increasingly successful campaign against modern flame-retardant chemicals because of evidence that they also cause cancer, but she told me that PFASs “are even a bigger problem than flame retardants.”
The chemical industry acknowledges that older, “long-chain” PFASs are a problem, but says that it is replacing them with “short-chain” versions that should be fine. It is true that there is less evidence against the short-chains, but that is perhaps because they have been studied less.
Americans expect that chemicals used in consumer products have been safety tested.
Not so. The vast majority of the 80,000 chemicals available for sale in the US have never been tested for effects on our health.
Any testing is being done on all of us. We are the guinea pigs.
The US Congress may finally pass new legislation regulating toxic chemicals, but it is so weak a bill that the chemical industry has embraced it. The Senate version is better than nothing, but, astonishingly, it provides for assessing high-priority chemicals at a rate of about only five a year and it is not clear that the House of Representatives will go that far.
Yes, of countless toxicants suspected of increasing the risk of cancer, obesity, epigenetic damage and reproductive problems, the US would commit to testing five each year. And that would actually be progress.
For safety reasons, Europe and Canada already restrict hundreds of chemicals routinely used in the US. Perhaps the danger of tainted brands and lost sales abroad — not the risk to Americans — will motivate US companies to adopt overseas limits.
Scientists are already taking precautions and weighing trade-offs in their personal lives. Thomas Zoeller, a biology professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, says he now avoids buying nonstick pans. University of Rhode Island oceanographer Rainer Lohmann told me that he is replacing carpets in his house with wood floors in part to reduce PFASs.
Green Science Policy Institute senior scientist Simona Balan avoids microwave popcorn and stain-resistant furniture.
Blum says she avoids buying certain nonstick products and waterproof products, but reluctantly uses a glide wax for backcountry skis that contains PFASs.
“Every time I spray it on, I realize the chemicals will be in my body for a very long time and on the planet for geologic time, perhaps longer than mankind,” Blum said. “But I do enjoy a good glide when I ski.”
Some brands, including Levi’s, Benetton and Victoria’s Secret, are pledging to avoid PFASs. Evaluations of the safety of products are available free at the GoodGuide and Skin Deep Web sites.
The chemical lobby is following the same script as the tobacco and lead lobbies a generation ago, throwing around campaign donations and lobbying muscle to delay regulation.
The chemical industry spent US$190 million lobbying in the last three years. If only it would devote such sums to developing safer products, rather than to defending its right to produce suspected carcinogens.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers