by Hyon K. Rah – Chair, Environment & Sustainable Development Committee

July 2021

An important part of my job working as a sustainability and resilience strategist is to stay up to date on the latest scientific findings and studies. Sadly, this built up my tolerance for highly disturbing information, and it takes something extraordinarily bad to startle me. A few weeks ago, I found myself profoundly disturbed by a study on the chemicals included in cosmetic products. The study found over 50% of 200+ North American cosmetic products tested contained toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS); most of the tested products did not disclose PFAS in their ingredients lists. To be clear, the study does not mention how much PFAS exposure would result from using these products, and, currently, there is no scientifically-based conclusion on what constitutes a harmful level of PFAS exposure for humans. That said, I feel compelled to share with you what I learned and why I am so concerned.

Figure 1: How PFAS can enter the body through the cosmetic items that contain them (Source: Environmental Science & Technology Letters)

PFAS are known as “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally. This means once PFAS enter our bodies, they continue to accumulate. Research has linked PFAS to a slew of negative health issues, including increased cancer risks, liver impairment, decreased fertility, and weakened immune response. According to the study, the cosmetic items with the highest levels include waterproof mascara (82%), liquid lipstick (62%), and foundation (63%)—all products that could easily penetrate into our bodies both directly and indirectly (Figure 1). I had known and deeply concerned about PFAS in water systems for some time, but I clearly did not grasp just how universal their presence is. A 2005-2013 environmental study of over 69,000 people in the Ohio River Valley found that people who were exposed to higher-than-normal levels of PFOA (a type of PFAS) had increased risk of high cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension. The findings helped over 3,000 affected community members reach a $670 million settlement with DuPont Chemical Company, which was accused of contaminating the local drinking water with PFOA. Knowing that, it made me feel sick to know I was actively introducing toxic chemicals of any amount into my body without realizing it every time I put on makeup.

PFAS is widely used in fire- and water-repellent products (e.g., Gore-Tex, ScotchGuard, spill-proof carpets), nonstick pans (e.g., Teflon), fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, and firefighting foams used at military bases and commercial airports (Figure 2). As there is no regulation or treatment guidelines mandated for facilities that use or produce products containing PFAS, the chemicals have freely made their way into the groundwater, surface waterbodies, and even the rain. The most common way PFAS enters the human body is through drinking water, yet neither the utilities nor the drinking water agencies are required to monitor PFAS levels in the waterbodies they manage.

Figure 2: Common items containing PFAS (Source: Earth Justice)

In January 2020, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) reported finding PFAS in the drinking water of most major U.S. cities, including 34 that were not previously reported to the EPA. Among the previously unreported was Quad City, Iowa, where 109.8 ppt of PFAS was detected—1.5 times the EPA’s recommended limit of 70 ppt. Of the sampled cities, the highest level was detected in Brunswick County, North Carolina, at 185.9 ppt. All in all, 2,337 contaminated public and private water systems were detected in 49 states (Figure 3), serving over 200 million Americans.

Figure 3: Map illustrating the prevalence of forever chemicals in our water system across the country (Source: EWG)

In order to prevent mass paranoia, we need to understand the threshold at which PFAS exposure becomes harmful. After all, 97% of Americans, including newborn babies, already have PFAS in their blood. Unfortunately, scientists do not currently know the answer.

In the meantime, I suggest we become familiar with the products that contain PFAS and be mindful about avoiding them. For my part, I started by tossing my waterproof mascara into the trash and researched PFAS-free makeup options (of which there are many). Below are some resources for your immediate use:

• EWG’s guide to avoiding PFAS
• PFAS-free products guide
• L.A. Times’ recommendation on treating PFAS-contaminated water

In the long run, this is a grave issue that will continue to threaten our health and wellbeing unless the root causes are addressed. This would require all of us demanding regulatory action, at a minimum, to limit PFAS level in our drinking water supply and consumer products and cleaning up contaminated sites, including military bases and manufacturing facilities.

Sources:

• Environmental Science & Technology Letters. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00240
• Center for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfas/health-effects/index.html
• C8 Science Panel. http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/
• Grist. https://grist.org/science/its-raining-forever-chemicals-in-the-great-lakes/
• Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/
• Environmental Working Group. https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/
• Center for Disease Control. https://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/topics/agents/pfc/index.cfm