Flawed WHO report on ‘forever chemicals’ fails human health, EWG scientists find

The WHO promotes political science. That is it’s raison d’être ( reason or justification for existence)


A draft World Health Organization analysis of the two most notorious “forever chemicals” disregards hundreds of health risk studies, claiming there are too many uncertainties to calculate a safe exposure level for the substances.

The two chemicals are PFOA, formerly used by DuPont to make Teflon, and PFOS, formerly an ingredient in 3M’s Scotchgard, both members of the class of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS.

The draft

“Background document for development of WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality,” disregards WHO’s mission of putting public health first: It creates the potential for doubt about how PFOA and PFOS harm people. Instead, WHO emphasizes cutting the cost of removing the chemicals from water.

Across the globe, PFAS exposure is an urgent public health priority. Decades of widespread PFAS use have contaminated water, soil and animals in the farthest corners of the world. Today PFAS are found in the blood of virtually everyone, including newborn babies who are exposed when PFAS cross from the pregnant body to cord blood.

We know very low doses of PFAS have been linked to suppression of the immune system, including reduced vaccine efficacy. These chemicals harm development and the reproductive system, such as reduced birth weight and impacts on fertility; increase the risk of certain cancers; and affect metabolism, such as changes in cholesterol and weight gain.

The Environmental Protection Agency acknowledges these risks, recently proposing significantly stricter but non-binding advisories for levels of PFOA and PFOS in drinking water above which health harms could be expected following a lifetime of exposure.

The WHO draft sows unnecessary doubt where hard facts already exist. It resembles the tobacco and chemical industry playbookraising already answered questions about legitimate scientific studies to create confusion over the risks of a particular substance. The draft says there are too many uncertainties about the science on PFOA and PFOS to know what level of exposure might be considered safe.

There are several aspects of the WHO report that are flawed and do not follow established risk assessment guidelines, leaving public health unprotected.

Instead of focusing on the health risks of PFAS, the WHO prioritizes discussion about how to minimize the cost of removing forever chemicals from contaminated water. This approach protects the polluting industries that have discharged PFAS for decades.

Not the least bit surprising coming from the WHO!

WHO is taking public comments on the draft document until November 11. A strong, unified response from public health advocates outlining the problems with the report is essential to correcting its numerous flaws and omissions. Only with these fixes can the report help ensure that health protection from PFAS stays a priority.

2 replies on “Flawed WHO report on ‘forever chemicals’ fails human health, EWG scientists find”

As William Albrecht said, “It’s not the overwhelming invader we must fear but the weakened condition of the victim.”
I have confidence in nature. I have no confidence in man or womankind.Nature does what makes sense. Man or womankind does what makes money and is seldom what nature would do.
People run around like chickens with their heads cut off worrying about the overwhelming invader while paying little or no attention to the weakened condition of the victim, certainly not making the weakened condition of the victim the priority.
As long as this remains the point of view, nothing will get better. Making money depends on symptomatic treatments. Prevention by addressing the cause simply does not make enough money.
Protection from the overwhelming invader is provided by nutrition. That’s the only thing you can’t get in a grocery store.

Hi Gary Wilson
sorry for being so long in replying 🙁
I too have confidence in nature. And agree natures does what makes sense. (though many will say it does not)
I have less confidence in man/womankind because they are too easily influenced/manipulated by those they perceive as authorities.

Been thinking about all the covid stuff and without saying, but, still it’s plainly obvious- the deaths in those with multiple comorbidities are an acknowledgement of terrain theory.
The weakened state of these individuals made them more susceptible and you are correct there is no mass profit to be made in having healthier people- In fact it’s a money loser

Leave a Reply