SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
A woman washes dishes at a water supply station in Kashmir, India on March 22, 2023.
(Photo: Faisal Khan/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
WHO's Proposed Limits on PFAS in Drinking Water Far Too Weak: Experts
The WHO's draft drinking water guidelines for forever chemicals reveal a "striking and inappropriate disregard of the best available science" and must be "extensively revised" to adequately protect public health, experts say.
Apr 27, 2023
The World Health Organization's draft drinking water guidelines for two "forever chemicals" reveal a "striking and inappropriate disregard of the best available science" and must be "extensively revised" to adequately protect public health.
So wrote former U.S. government scientists Betsy Southerland and Linda Birnbaum in an article published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The stakes are extremely high, according to Southerland, the former director of science and technology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water, and Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
That's because once finalized, the WHO's regulatory framework for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water is likely to be adopted by many countries. The United Nations agency's draft guidelines are much weaker than rules imposed in Denmark and advanced in Canada, and they could facilitate legal challenges to the U.S. EPA's proposed standards, which are much more stringent albeit still insufficient according to many public health advocates.
PFAS are a class of hazardous synthetic compounds widely called "forever chemicals" because they persist in people's bodies and the environment for years on end. Scientists have linked long-term PFAS exposure to numerous adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, immune system damage, and other negative effects. The substances—used in dozens of everyday household products, including ostensibly "green" and "nontoxic" children's items, as well as firefighting foam—have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans and in 100% of breast milk samples.
The WHO's draft guidance recommends drinking water limits of 100 parts per trillion (ppt) individually for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)—two of the most well-studied PFAS—and 500 ppt total for the 29 PFAS compounds that can be reliably measured, though this is a fraught topic. The WHO's proposed limits on PFOS and PFOA are 25 times higher than those put forth last month by the U.S. EPA, and such a significant gap could hinder federal and state efforts to better regulate the nation's drinking water.
What accounts for the glaring discrepancy between the two agencies? According to the new article, the WHO has proposed relatively weak PFAS limits because its working group contends that "there is significant uncertainty and lack of consensus on whether PFOA and PFOS can be linked to adverse health effects."
Southerland and Birnbaum condemned the WHO's conclusion as "a striking and inappropriate disregard for the best available science." As the authors noted, numerous studies "link exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS with multiple health effects, including immune effects, increased cholesterol, liver, and thyroid problems, reproductive and developmental harm, and multiple types of cancer."
In addition to failing to "take into account the overwhelming global scientific evidence of serious health effects in epidemiological studies," the WHO's guidelines "misrepresent the effectiveness of affordable, readily available treatment technology," Southerland and Birnbaum argued. "At the same time that the European Chemicals Agency is considering restrictions on the manufacture and use of all PFAS on the basis of the scientific evidence, it is stunning that the WHO maintains no health-based guidance values can be developed. To support the work of public health agencies worldwide providing people with safe drinking water, the WHO guidance levels need to be extensively revised."
The new article comes almost six months after more than 100 scientists sent a letter calling on the WHO to completely overhaul or withdraw its draft guidance and to disclose authorship and potential conflicts of interest.
In response to that letter and other demands for transparency, the WHO published a list of contributors in January. However, it remains unclear if the list is comprehensive.
Moreover, the WHO has not yet disclosed the feedback it received during the public comment period, nor has the agency announced when it plans to finalize its proposed rules.
"It is critically important for the safety of drinking water worldwide," wrote Southerland and Birnbaum, "that WHO recommendations are based on the best available science on the health effects of PFAS and the effectiveness of drinking water treatment technology."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
pfaspublic healthwaterworld health organizationdrinking waterus environmental protection agencyforever chemicals
The World Health Organization's draft drinking water guidelines for two "forever chemicals" reveal a "striking and inappropriate disregard of the best available science" and must be "extensively revised" to adequately protect public health.
So wrote former U.S. government scientists Betsy Southerland and Linda Birnbaum in an article published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The stakes are extremely high, according to Southerland, the former director of science and technology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water, and Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
That's because once finalized, the WHO's regulatory framework for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water is likely to be adopted by many countries. The United Nations agency's draft guidelines are much weaker than rules imposed in Denmark and advanced in Canada, and they could facilitate legal challenges to the U.S. EPA's proposed standards, which are much more stringent albeit still insufficient according to many public health advocates.
PFAS are a class of hazardous synthetic compounds widely called "forever chemicals" because they persist in people's bodies and the environment for years on end. Scientists have linked long-term PFAS exposure to numerous adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, immune system damage, and other negative effects. The substances—used in dozens of everyday household products, including ostensibly "green" and "nontoxic" children's items, as well as firefighting foam—have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans and in 100% of breast milk samples.
The WHO's draft guidance recommends drinking water limits of 100 parts per trillion (ppt) individually for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)—two of the most well-studied PFAS—and 500 ppt total for the 29 PFAS compounds that can be reliably measured, though this is a fraught topic. The WHO's proposed limits on PFOS and PFOA are 25 times higher than those put forth last month by the U.S. EPA, and such a significant gap could hinder federal and state efforts to better regulate the nation's drinking water.
What accounts for the glaring discrepancy between the two agencies? According to the new article, the WHO has proposed relatively weak PFAS limits because its working group contends that "there is significant uncertainty and lack of consensus on whether PFOA and PFOS can be linked to adverse health effects."
Southerland and Birnbaum condemned the WHO's conclusion as "a striking and inappropriate disregard for the best available science." As the authors noted, numerous studies "link exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS with multiple health effects, including immune effects, increased cholesterol, liver, and thyroid problems, reproductive and developmental harm, and multiple types of cancer."
In addition to failing to "take into account the overwhelming global scientific evidence of serious health effects in epidemiological studies," the WHO's guidelines "misrepresent the effectiveness of affordable, readily available treatment technology," Southerland and Birnbaum argued. "At the same time that the European Chemicals Agency is considering restrictions on the manufacture and use of all PFAS on the basis of the scientific evidence, it is stunning that the WHO maintains no health-based guidance values can be developed. To support the work of public health agencies worldwide providing people with safe drinking water, the WHO guidance levels need to be extensively revised."
The new article comes almost six months after more than 100 scientists sent a letter calling on the WHO to completely overhaul or withdraw its draft guidance and to disclose authorship and potential conflicts of interest.
In response to that letter and other demands for transparency, the WHO published a list of contributors in January. However, it remains unclear if the list is comprehensive.
Moreover, the WHO has not yet disclosed the feedback it received during the public comment period, nor has the agency announced when it plans to finalize its proposed rules.
"It is critically important for the safety of drinking water worldwide," wrote Southerland and Birnbaum, "that WHO recommendations are based on the best available science on the health effects of PFAS and the effectiveness of drinking water treatment technology."
Kenny Stancil
Kenny Stancil is senior researcher at the Revolving Door Project and a former staff writer for Common Dreams.
The World Health Organization's draft drinking water guidelines for two "forever chemicals" reveal a "striking and inappropriate disregard of the best available science" and must be "extensively revised" to adequately protect public health.
So wrote former U.S. government scientists Betsy Southerland and Linda Birnbaum in an article published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology.
The stakes are extremely high, according to Southerland, the former director of science and technology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water, and Birnbaum, the former director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.
That's because once finalized, the WHO's regulatory framework for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in drinking water is likely to be adopted by many countries. The United Nations agency's draft guidelines are much weaker than rules imposed in Denmark and advanced in Canada, and they could facilitate legal challenges to the U.S. EPA's proposed standards, which are much more stringent albeit still insufficient according to many public health advocates.
PFAS are a class of hazardous synthetic compounds widely called "forever chemicals" because they persist in people's bodies and the environment for years on end. Scientists have linked long-term PFAS exposure to numerous adverse health outcomes, including cancer, reproductive and developmental harms, immune system damage, and other negative effects. The substances—used in dozens of everyday household products, including ostensibly "green" and "nontoxic" children's items, as well as firefighting foam—have been detected in the blood of 97% of Americans and in 100% of breast milk samples.
The WHO's draft guidance recommends drinking water limits of 100 parts per trillion (ppt) individually for perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)—two of the most well-studied PFAS—and 500 ppt total for the 29 PFAS compounds that can be reliably measured, though this is a fraught topic. The WHO's proposed limits on PFOS and PFOA are 25 times higher than those put forth last month by the U.S. EPA, and such a significant gap could hinder federal and state efforts to better regulate the nation's drinking water.
What accounts for the glaring discrepancy between the two agencies? According to the new article, the WHO has proposed relatively weak PFAS limits because its working group contends that "there is significant uncertainty and lack of consensus on whether PFOA and PFOS can be linked to adverse health effects."
Southerland and Birnbaum condemned the WHO's conclusion as "a striking and inappropriate disregard for the best available science." As the authors noted, numerous studies "link exposure to PFOA, PFOS, and other PFAS with multiple health effects, including immune effects, increased cholesterol, liver, and thyroid problems, reproductive and developmental harm, and multiple types of cancer."
In addition to failing to "take into account the overwhelming global scientific evidence of serious health effects in epidemiological studies," the WHO's guidelines "misrepresent the effectiveness of affordable, readily available treatment technology," Southerland and Birnbaum argued. "At the same time that the European Chemicals Agency is considering restrictions on the manufacture and use of all PFAS on the basis of the scientific evidence, it is stunning that the WHO maintains no health-based guidance values can be developed. To support the work of public health agencies worldwide providing people with safe drinking water, the WHO guidance levels need to be extensively revised."
The new article comes almost six months after more than 100 scientists sent a letter calling on the WHO to completely overhaul or withdraw its draft guidance and to disclose authorship and potential conflicts of interest.
In response to that letter and other demands for transparency, the WHO published a list of contributors in January. However, it remains unclear if the list is comprehensive.
Moreover, the WHO has not yet disclosed the feedback it received during the public comment period, nor has the agency announced when it plans to finalize its proposed rules.
"It is critically important for the safety of drinking water worldwide," wrote Southerland and Birnbaum, "that WHO recommendations are based on the best available science on the health effects of PFAS and the effectiveness of drinking water treatment technology."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.