Forever Chemicals on Produce

I read this first up this morning. That “more than 30 percent of the fruit and vegetable sampled, the report found, contained PFAS…” then within the same paragraph “…they have been “…linked to a variety of negative health effects, such as a decreased immune response, altered metabolic signaling, and even an increased risk of certain types of cancer.”

This citing the Environmental Working Group (EWG).

• The first linked study regarding immunotoxicology was related to PFOS, PFOA, PFHxS, PFNA, and PFDA (Sigvaldsen (2024), doi.org/10.3390/ijerph2…

• The second linked study on metabolic dysfunction points to the Keck School of Medicine of USC, that I believe points to doi.org/10.1016/j.envre… (some authors are expert consultants for plaintiffs in litigation related to PFAS-contaminated drinking water).

• The third points to NIEHS involving PFOA and PFOS, where there is significant data and concern. dceg.cancer.gov/researc…

Let me add that this all occurred in a single paragraph, so let me put on my legal hat (and improve as best I can).

Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances. I have previously outlined how the ever-expanding definition of PFAS is susceptible to misuse and can materially mislead the public. When Scientific American calls to “Stand Up for Science,” yet simultaneously conflates substances with well-characterized risks alongside those that are toxicologically distinct, it raises serious questions about adherence to basic standards of accuracy and due diligence. At a minimum, this was a departure from responsible scientific communication, but more is reckless disregard for the truth. The public deserves reporting that is precise, evidence-based, and not prone to such overbroad generalizations. Maybe you’d disagree? I have to get to work… boy… what a disappointing morning of misinformation. This on the heels of a previous misfire by SciAm. brianhmathison.substack…

Stand Up for Toxicological Sciences (not the EWG/SciAM here)