Don’t Let People Convince You That Combatting PFAS Is Too Daunting Of A Task

In recent years, more and more stakeholders seek to separate out PFAS signatures from one another.

One of the key reasons scientists are so concerned about the effects of PFAS aka forever chemicals, is that they are everywhere. If you go looking for them in food containers, water, soil, plants, or consumer products, you are overwhelmingly likely to find at least some amounts of PFAS. Often, we refer to this as PFAS being “ubiquitous” in the environment. And because they are ubiquitous, we spend a lot of time trying to sort out different sources from one another.

Now for some contaminants, this is a little bit more normal and to be expected. Things like nitrate, that are both naturally occurring and man-made (anthropogenic), can have what we call a natural “background” level. This is the amount that’s naturally present from environmental communities and functions. However, there’s nothing natural about PFAS and it turns my stomach when I hear folks say that there are background levels of PFAS.

The truth is, there are not background levels of PFAS. PFAS shouldn’t be in anyone’s soil, water, plants, or other environmental compartments. Many of you may be asking, why does this matter? Isn’t it just a matter of semantics?

In recent years we’ve seen more and more folks argue that PFAS pollution from a specific source “isn’t above background levels”. They often use this to justify that the specific source isn’t so much a source, nor should it be held responsible for releasing PFAS into the environment. Specifically in my career as a consultant, I’ve seen more and more folks argue privately that because PFAS is everywhere, it’s hard to hold anyone accountable for contamination. It’s almost as if they are resigned to the fact that PFAS is so omnipresent that what’s the point of combatting the problem?

Maybe it is my natural lean towards punk rock and anti-authoritarian policies, but throwing in the towel just because you have an uphill battle is not how science and life works. In fact, I’d argue avoiding confrontation and having to put in effort will lead to a much more miserable and unfulfilling life….

The problem is that we allowed PFAS to become part of our “background” to begin with. We allowed major corporations to decide what was safe and reasonable, instead of trusting scientists to do experiments, collect data, and come to conclusions with actual evidence. The “do your own research” crowd should agree with me on this one, you’d rather let faceless billionaires decide what’s safe? You won’t cook with seed oils, but you’re cool with PFAS permeating every part of your life? I’m not trying to argue, in fact I think we have a lot of good work we can do if we come together as scientists and skeptics!

Many people will spend the next years in court arguing that their client’s PFAS contamination is not above background levels. While I agree that no sole source is responsible for all PFAS contamination, they are certainly a part of the problem that allowed a “background” to even exist.

The truth is we’re all sources of PFAS, even me. We all use products that contain PFAS and then dump them in the trash or down the drain. This fills our landfills, septic tanks, and wastewater treatment plants with PFAS that also contribute to that background, just like the factory or industry trying to shun responsibility in court. So yes, we all are responsible, and we all must make changes! But that’s not an excuse to let other polluters off the hook.

Hopefully this provides a bit of an insight into the challenges that many scientists are facing as we navigate the struggle to combat environmental pollution. It’s a complex and at times treacherous environment, fraught with industrial titans, legal implications, and unfortunately a few people who are more concerned about money than environmental health. But just because something requires effort and tough discussions, doesn’t mean that you should roll over and give up the fight. Nothing good comes easy after all!