PFOS pollution: “No need to panic” (toxicologists) – Belgium

(Belga) The afternoon session of the first session of the Flemish Commission of Inquiry into PFOS pollution conveyed a somewhat optimistic message. “There is no need to panic,” several toxicologists ruled. The level of PFOS in our environment decreases and the effects are only felt in the long term.

Professor Nicolas Van Larebeke, toxicologist at UGent and VUB, opened his speech with the statement that it is almost impossible to prove in black and white that a certain substance causes cancer in humans. That is also impossible for tobacco, for example. Thus, 3M’s denial of causality is irrelevant, he ruled. “To determine the cancer risk in humans, we have to rely on animal testing,” said Van Larebeke. “Lots of industry interest groups are trying to tell us that there is little connection between animal and human cancer. There isn’t. The mechanisms are the same.” In this way, and through epidemiological studies in humans, it was proven that exposure to PFAS increases the risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, testicular cancer and kidney cancer, among other things. According to Van Larebeke, the only reason to deny this is economic interests. Professor Jamie C DeWitt, a toxicologist at East Carolina University, added that PFOA and PFOS also pose a major immune threat to humans. “They’re interfering with our response to vaccines,” DeWitt said. “We are in the middle of an epidemic where that response is crucial. So this is very worrying, especially for people who are currently exposed to PFOS. Studies also show that people with high levels of PFBA (a related substance, ed. ) suffer from worse COVID infections in their blood and have to stay in hospital longer.” Still, there’s no reason to panic, the experts said. “These are substances that we have to get rid of,” said Professor Greet Schoeters of VITO and the UA. “We have to tackle the sources. But there is no acute danger. Measurements must be made urgently. For example, we do not have a clear view of the actual levels in the eggs.” Van Larebeke also warned against panic. “There is no reason for that. The heaviest contamination, at least with the old PFAS, is behind us and our exposure is declining today. The effects are usually not very pronounced, so I don’t think we are facing a disaster. PFAS is much less potent than dioxins or asbestos, but caution should be exercised with the new PFAS derivatives, whose toxicity is not yet known,” he concluded. (Belgium)

Professor Nicolas Van Larebeke, toxicologist at UGent and VUB, opened his speech with the statement that it is almost impossible to prove in black and white that a certain substance causes cancer in humans. That is also impossible for tobacco, for example. Thus, 3M’s denial of causality is irrelevant, he ruled. “To determine the cancer risk in humans, we have to rely on animal testing,” said Van Larebeke. “Lots of industry interest groups are trying to tell us that there is little connection between animal and human cancer. There isn’t. The mechanisms are the same.” In this way, and through epidemiological studies in humans, it was proven that exposure to PFAS increases the risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer, testicular cancer and kidney cancer, among other things. According to Van Larebeke, the only reason to deny this is economic interests. Professor Jamie C DeWitt, a toxicologist at East Carolina University, added that PFOA and PFOS also pose a major immune threat to humans. “They’re interfering with our response to vaccines,” DeWitt said. “We are in the middle of an epidemic where that response is crucial. So this is very worrying, especially for people who are currently exposed to PFOS. Studies also show that people with high levels of PFBA (a related substance, ed. ) suffer from worse COVID infections in their blood and have to stay longer in the hospital.” Still, there’s no reason to panic, the experts said. “These are substances that we have to get rid of,” said Professor Greet Schoeters of VITO and the UA. “We have to tackle the sources. But there is no acute danger. Measurements must be made urgently. For example, we do not have a clear view of the actual levels in the eggs.” Van Larebeke also warned against panic. “There is no reason for that. The heaviest contamination, at least with the old PFAS, is behind us and our exposure is declining today. The effects are usually not very pronounced, so I don’t think we are facing a disaster. PFAS is much less potent than dioxins or asbestos, but caution should be exercised with the new PFAS derivatives, whose toxicity is not yet known,” he concluded. (Belgium)

–