Researchers reviewed public resources on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances from state and federal agencies and other health organizations to see how these groups discussed PFAS contamination.
The analysis found that public health agencies often understate scientific evidence related to the toxicity of PFAS — and that many organizations failed to give clear messages about the risks and needs of highly exposed populations, like those who have long consumed water from the Cape Fear River.
“As a physician who has had to advise many people whose drinking water has been contaminated with PFAS—sometimes for decades—I know only too well the distress and confusion felt by hard-hit communities,” said lead author Alan Ducatman, a physician and professor emeritus at West Virginia University. “Patients and doctors in PFAS-contaminated neighborhoods need accurate information on how to protect their health.”
Ducatman said many patients are worried about the repercussions of PFAS exposure. For example, patients with newborns are often concerned about breastfeeding, given that PFAS is passed to infants through breastmilk.
“We recommend breastfeeding even for highly exposed patients. We simply have more information about the many benefits of breastfeeding than we do about the risks of PFAS in breastmilk. But most of the government websites we reviewed ignored these difficult and complicated situations,” Ducatman said.
The report also noted that government agencies tend to overemphasize the uncertainty of health harm and hedge that PFAS 'may' cause health effects, according to "some studies." This language is misleading, because nearly all studies link PFAS exposure to negative health outcomes for certain immune, liver, reproductive, and cancer outcomes such as kidney or testicular cancer.
“The experimental and observational evidence supporting the links between exposure to certain PFAS and adverse outcomes like reduced vaccine responses and liver damage is robust,” said co-author and East Carolina University professor Jamie DeWitt. “Agency websites and fact sheets that use weak language like ‘may cause’ and ‘some studies’ across health outcomes are misleading the public.”
What's more, relatively few agencies reviewed in the study discussed how to reduce exposure to PFAS.
The researchers did find positive examples of communications from some state agencies and nonprofit groups that can serve as models for improvement. They recommend the Connecticut Department of Public Health’s fact sheet, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials Clinician FAQ, and the clinician guidance on Silent Spring Institute’s PFAS-REACH Exchange website.
Ten leading PFAS researchers listed in the paper are calling on government agencies to update their communications to better serve people in heavily contaminated communities- and to better align with the science.
Copyright 2022 WHQR. To see more, visit WHQR. 9(MDAxNzg0MDExMDEyMTYyMjc1MDE3NGVmMw004))