‘Concerning’ levels of ‘forever chemicals’ in US mothers’ breast milk, study says
‘The study shows that PFAS contamination of breast milk is likely universal in the US’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A new study that evaluated American women’s breast milk for toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” has shown “cause for concern” in the levels found in the 50 samples it analysed.
The study, first reported by The Guardian, reportedly showed that the toxic chemical was found at levels nearly 2,000 times higher than certain health experts advise is safe.
“The study shows that PFAS contamination of breast milk is likely universal in the US, and that these harmful chemicals are contaminating what should be nature’s perfect food,” Erika Schreder a co-author of the study told the newspaper.
Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances, otherwise known as PFAS, are often referred to as “forever chemicals” as they don’t break down easily after being released into the environment.
The diverse group of chemicals has long been used in a variety of consumer and industrial products such as cleaning products, cookware, food packaging, and food-processing equipment due to their resistant properties.
“Accumulation of certain PFAS has also been shown through blood tests to occur in humans and animals,” the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) writes.
“While the science surrounding potential health effects of this bioaccumulation of certain PFAS is developing, evidence suggests it may cause serious health conditions,” they add.
The peer-reviewed study published on Thursday in the Environmental Science and Technology journal found PFAS in the samples ranging from 50 parts per trillion (ppt) to more than 1,850ppt, The Guardian said.
While there is no specific standard for the levels of the chemicals in breast milk, the public health advocacy organisation Environmental Working Group has developed a health guidance of 1ppt for drinking water.
Another organisation, the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, within the Department of Health and Human Services, advises 14ppt for water drunk by children.
It's important to note that at 50 samples, the size of the testing was relatively small.
Sheela Sathyanarayana, another co-author and University of Washington paediatrician, said the findings speak to the fact that “the chemicals are so ubiquitous that we can’t really predict who will have the highest exposures”.
There are thousands of PFAS chemicals used by manufacturers in certain products, and the newspaper notes the new study contradicts the chemical industry’s claims that newer generations of PFAS do not accumulate in humans.
“The study provides more evidence that the PFAS that companies are currently using and putting into products are behaving like the ones they phased out, and they’re also getting into breast milk and exposing children at a very vulnerable phase of development,” Ms Schreder said.
Subscribe to Independent Premium to bookmark this article
Want to bookmark your favourite articles and stories to read or reference later? Start your Independent Premium subscription today.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments