PFAS—short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—are everywhere. The chemicals, which make materials resistant to stains, grease, and water, are also putting our health at risk. Here’s what to know about PFAS...and why there’s good news on the horizon.

PFAS: A perfect storm

PFAS are a class of human-made chemicals developed in the 1940s. 

“We started with a couple of PFAS, used for things like Teflon and Scotchgard,” says Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

“Now, the Environmental Protection Agency has cataloged over 14,000 different PFAS for which there are over 200 different use categories. Think cleaning products, cosmetics, stain-resistant sofas and carpets, water-resistant clothing, or gear like raincoats.” PFAS are also used in paints, polishes, and more. 

PFAS are chains of carbon atoms bound to fluorine. “I’ve heard chemists describe their bonds as the strongest in chemistry,” says Jamie DeWitt, director of the Environmental Health Sciences Center at Oregon State University.

“That bond imparts a lot of durability. But it also means that there are no natural processes—in us or the environment—to break down PFAS.” (That’s why they’re often called “forever” chemicals.)

And PFAS move easily through the environment.

“They settle into soil, into groundwater,” explains Reade. “They move through ocean currents and the air. We now have PFAS in the Arctic and PFAS in rainwater across the globe at higher levels than the EPA considers safe for drinking water.”

“It’s a perfect storm, not only of persistence and mobility, but also of accumulation, because many PFAS build up in our bodies. It’s the result of decades of widespread, largely unchecked use of chemicals that don’t break down.”

How you’re exposed to PFAS

“One of the more complex areas of research is trying to understand people’s exposure to PFAS, because everybody is different,” says Reade. 

On the job

“People with the highest exposure are typically those who work with PFAS,” DeWitt explains. That includes people who work at a facility that produces PFAS or firefighters who are exposed to firefighting foam or outerwear that contain high levels of PFAS.

Drinking water

“If you live in a community with substantial drinking water contamination, the majority of your PFAS exposure is from your water,” says Reade.

Take the Cape Fear River in North Carolina. “It has high concentrations of PFAS due to a nearby PFAS production facility that has discharged PFAS into the river for decades,” says DeWitt.

Firefighting foam is another major cause of contaminated drinking water.

 “For decades, the Department of Defense required the use of PFAS-based foams at its military bases,” says Reade. “And the Federal Aviation Administration models its requirements after the DOD, so all major airports used that foam as well.”

A single firefighting event or training exercise can release thousands of gallons of foam into the environment.

“There are over 700 DOD sites across the U.S., plus all the airports,” notes Reade. “If you think about the number of sites that could have used this firefighting foam, plus the volume of foam that’s used, the impact is enormous.”

“If you live near an airport or a military base, that foam may have been contaminating the groundwater that serves your public water system or your private well for decades.”

(In 2023, the defense department updated its guidelines and now requires that firefighting foam contain no intentionally added PFAS.)

Diet

“For the rest of us, who don’t deal with occupational or drinking water PFAS exposure, the majority of our exposure is probably from our diet,” says DeWitt.

“High PFAS levels are commonly detected in freshwater fish and seafood,” says David Andrews, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group. Some studies have also found PFAS in meat, dairy, poultry, eggs, and some fruits and vegetables. “And the FDA has found PFAS contamination in greens grown near PFAS manufacturing facilities in North Carolina,” adds Andrews.

That said, no one knows the extent to which PFAS contaminate our food. “The onus is on the FDA to do more comprehensive testing of the food supply,” says Andrews.

Even so, you may want to think twice before eating freshwater fish from your latest fishing trip.

When Andrews analyzed EPA data on PFAS levels in 501 freshwater fish samples caught in U.S. waterways from 2013 to 2015, all but one tested positive. On average, PFAS levels in the fish were roughly 275 times higher than levels in popular store-bought seafood samples (mostly imported seafood like clams, cod, crab, salmon, and tuna) analyzed by the FDA.

“We estimated that consuming just one serving of the freshwater fish we analyzed in an entire year would likely have a measurable impact on PFAS levels in the blood,” says Andrews.

And that single serving “would be equivalent to drinking water above the new drinking water standard for an entire year.”

Bottom line: “It takes very little freshwater fish to expose you to a large amount of PFAS. 

Unfortunately, “there are populations that rely on the fish they catch as a source of protein, for financial or cultural reasons,” adds Andrews, “so this is a social justice issue.”

Food packaging

Historically, PFAS have been used for their water- and grease-resistant properties to coat paper and cardboard food packages like pizza boxes, microwave popcorn bags, takeaway containers, and fast food wrappers.

And PFAS in your burger wrapper may mean a touch of PFAS in you.

“Based on what we know, you’re always getting some of your packaging in your food,” says Andrews.

PFAS are more likely to leach into food from packaging the longer the two are in contact and the higher the temperature, but “how much migrates is a question.”

Other sources

While the extent to which we are exposed to PFAS from other sources hasn’t been well studied, exposed, we are.

For example, you may be breathing in or swallowing PFAS in dust in your home that has sloughed off your clothing, upholstery, carpet, etc.

“And certain habits can dominate your PFAS exposure,” says Reade. “Maybe you used a ton of Scotchgard in your home, not knowing that, before 2020, it contained PFAS.”

Health harms of PFAS

More than 14,000 PFAS have been logged by the EPA, but “only a handful have been fairly well studied,” says DeWitt.

In 2022, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examined that handful. It found “sufficient evidence” that PFAS exposure is linked to an increased risk of kidney cancer, higher blood cholesterol, lower birth weight in babies, and blunted antibody responses to vaccines.

“That blunting not only puts people at risk for potentially being infected with the virus or bacteria against which they were vaccinated,” says DeWitt, “but it represents overall immune suppression.”

Higher blood levels of PFAS may also be linked to testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, altered liver enzymes, and high blood pressure during pregnancy, but the evidence wasn’t as strong on those outcomes, said the Academies.

Who’s at risk from PFAS?

“The specific level of exposure at which harms may occur is unknown,” acknowledges the National Academies’ report. Still, the authors offered some general guidelines.

“They grouped people into three categories,” DeWitt explains. “If you have less than 2 nanograms of PFAS per milliliter in your blood—based on the sum of 7 different PFAS—you’re considered to be at low risk. If you have 2 to 20 nanograms per milliliter, you’re at slightly elevated risk. And if you’re above 20 nanograms per milliliter, you’re at elevated risk.” (Most people in the U.S. fall in the 2-to-20 ng/mL range.)

“PFAS are in nearly all of us,” says DeWitt. “Some only last for days, others stay in us for years.”

In other words, if your PFAS exposure ended today, it would take several years for all the PFAS in your body to clear out.

If you want to have your blood analyzed for PFAS, you can find more information at PFAS-exchange.org. If your levels are high, ask your doctor if extra tests or monitoring are warranted.

Getting PFAS out of food packaging

In February, the FDA announced that, thanks to “a voluntary commitment by manufacturers,” PFAS-containing food packaging is no longer being sold in the U.S.

That’s a win, though don’t give too much credit to the manufacturers.

What really made the difference: “Public attention, FDA studies that raised concerns about the types of PFAS being used in food packaging, and 12 states’ banning the use of PFAS in food packaging,” says Andrews.

“Only then did the companies ‘voluntarily’ phase out PFAS. But by then, they’d already lost the market.”

Since the FDA didn’t ban PFAS in food packaging, it’s unclear how manufacturer compliance will be monitored. And even if PFAS-laden food packages are no longer being sold, it may take 1 to 1½ years for the stock of older packaging to work its way through the marketplace, Andrews points out. 

New limits on PFAS in water

In April, the EPA finalized new rules that set strict limits on six PFAS chemicals in public drinking water.

And none too soon.

“The EPA estimates that up to 105 million people in the U.S. get their water from utilities with PFAS levels that exceed the new standards,” says Reade. 

The new limits will “prevent thousands of deaths, and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses,” the EPA predicted.

“Two of the PFAS—PFOA and PFOS —are largely no longer produced in the U.S., but because they don’t break down, they’re still in our drinking water and in our bodies,” says Reade.

“Those two have been linked to cancer, and the EPA says there is no safe level of exposure to them.” The new rules limit PFOA and PFOS to the lowest level deemed feasible for monitoring: 4 parts per trillion.

“The rules also limit four additional PFAS, which have many of the same health effects as PFOA and PFOS, though their connection with cancer hasn’t been as well studied,” adds Reade.

If a water utility detects any of the six PFAS above the EPA’s thresholds, it will have to treat the water to remove them.

“The EPA’s new rules are a huge step forward,” says DeWitt. “And while the standards only cover six individual PFAS, it’s my understanding that once water systems are upgraded, the systems will be able to filter out a greater number of unmeasured PFAS.”

(If your water comes from a private well, you’ll have to get it tested to know if it has PFAS.)

Making polluters pay 

In April, the EPA dealt another blow to PFAS contamination when it listed PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law.

“It boils down to giving EPA the power to require polluters to pay for the cleanup of sites that are highly contaminated with PFOA or PFOS,” says Reade.

States are also moving against the chemicals. As of April, 30 state attorneys general had sued PFAS manufacturers for the pollution they’ve caused.

Last year, 3M (one of the top PFAS producers) agreed to pay public water suppliers up to $10.3 billion for testing and cleanup of PFAS. And the company promised to stop producing PFAS by the end of 2025.

DuPont and two of its spinoff companies, Chemours and Corteva, also reached a nearly $1.2 billion settlement with U.S. water suppliers last year.

All told, it could cost hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up the PFAS problem.

What else should be done

Enormous progress has been made in the last year alone in protecting U.S. residents from PFAS. Still, more can and should be done.

For starters, Andrews, DeWitt, and Reade all argue that, unlike the EPA’s new water standards, PFAS should be managed as a class, not individually.

“All PFAS are persistent or break down into other persistent PFAS,” says Reade. “That is reason enough to warrant concern for the entire class and to manage the class as a whole.”

It would likely take many lifetimes to study the damage caused by each of the thousands of PFAS, says DeWitt. But because the well-studied PFAS clearly show harm to our health and environment, it makes sense to lump all PFAS together.

One thing that could make regulating PFAS easier: not all of them are necessary.

“I’m a proponent of the essential use process,” says DeWitt. “If a PFAS is not essential for the health, safety, and functioning of society, get rid of it. And if it is essential and there’s a substitute, get rid of it. Those substitutes should have lower toxicity and environmental hazards.”

An example of non-essential PFAS: “Think of stain resistance on a couch,” says Reade. “It’s an extra perk, but it’s not essential to how that couch functions.”

But there are cases when PFAS are essential. “Some medical devices might use PFAS and may not have safer alternatives currently available,” notes Reade.

An “essential use” approach to PFAS is not a pie-in-the-sky ideal.

“Maine and Minnesota have already passed bills that ban nonessential uses of PFAS,” says Reade. More states are expected to follow.

What you can do to reduce your exposure to PFAS

Curbing our exposure to PFAS will require manufacturers to sharply reduce their use of the chemicals. And it will require government regulations to limit PFAS in our water, food, and homes. In the meantime, here’s what you can do.

Drinking water

“The new drinking water regulations may not be fully implemented for five years, but it’s easy to check your utility’s annual report to see if your water has PFAS,” says Andrews.

If it does, “you can find some reasonably inexpensive filters that will greatly reduce or remove that contamination.”

If your water is highly contaminated, bottled water can be a short-term fix. But some bottled waters have tested positive for PFAS, and the excess plastic does the planet no favors.

Nonstick pans

“Teflon is the poster child of PFAS, but cookware is not expected to be a major source of exposure,” Andrews notes.

That’s because nonstick coatings stay put unless the pans are used improperly. So don’t use metal utensils because you might scratch the surface, which could allow PFAS to migrate into your food. And keep the burner at medium-high or lower because high heat can cause the nonstick coating to degrade.

When it’s time to replace your PFAS-coated cookware, consider stainless steel, cast iron, or glass. Still want nonstick? Try ceramic.

Flooring, cosmetics, clothing, etc.

“Because there is some incidental exposure from PFAS-containing consumer products in the home, I try to purchase PFAS-free products when I can,” says DeWitt.

“When we had to get new flooring and textiles in our house, we researched brands that don’t use stain-resistant coatings.” (Check out PFAS Central for guidance.)

Cosmetics—including makeup, moisturizers, nail polish, and more—also can contain PFAS. Some stores like Whole Foods and some states have banned the use of PFAS in cosmetics.

PFAS are rarely clearly labeled on cosmetics, but it doesn’t hurt to check the ingredients for PTFE (aka Teflon) or anything with “fluoro” in its name.

“It does take a bit of work to determine what products don’t contain PFAS,” DeWitt acknowledges. “But some really good websites like the Green Science Policy Institute can help.”

And even though your exposure to PFAS from clothing, carpeting, and cookware may be low, there’s another reason to avoid PFAS when you can.

“Purchasing a product made with PFAS means greater health risks for the people who work with that material and who live near those production facilities,” says DeWitt.