According to recent studies, Asian Americans are much more exposed than other racial groups to “forever chemicals” related to cancer.
The results, which were published last week in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology, demonstrated that various socioeconomic and racial groups are probably exposed to various sources of the dangerous compounds known as PFAS. Due to their resistance to stains, grease, and water, the family of thousands of synthetic compounds is employed in a wide range of consumer goods, from rugs to straws.
According to Shelley Liu, the study’s principal author, the findings emphasized the need for additional research on the impact of PFAS on persons of Asian heritage.
Unfortunately, there is a lack of Asian Americans in medical research. There are undoubtedly a lot of unknowns, according to Liu, an associate professor at Mount Sinai’s Icahn School of Medicine. Investigating the potential links between the greater PFAS load among Asian Americans and potential health effects is crucial.
According to Liu, PFAS can stay in the body for years and accumulate exposure over time. The pervasive compounds have also been associated with lower fertility, an increased risk of some malignancies, and other harmful health impacts.
The study found that Asian Americans had a median PFAS level that was 88% greater than that of whites. Even after adjusting for socioeconomic position, Asian Americans still showed to have much higher levels of “exposure burden,” or cumulative exposure, to these chemicals, even though researchers discovered that people with higher incomes generally had higher amounts.
Given the variety of lifestyles among Asian Americans, Liu said it’s unclear what causes this gap and that pinpointing the causes can be difficult. However, Liu went on to say that it’s probable that higher exposure is linked to the fact that many people immigrate from nations with varying requirements for PFAS legislation. She added that certain exposure can be related to cultural elements like nutrition.
“It could be a combination of several different things,” she said, “ranging from dietary sources of PFAS to in food packaging.” My family also consumes meals that are culturally distinct. Due to their import, we simply don’t really know.
Similarly, Anna Reade, senior scientist on PFAS at the Natural Resources Defense Council, suggested that dietary and cultural factors may contribute to the discrepancies, noting freshwater fish as a food item frequently associated with PFAS contamination. According to a 2017 study reported in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, Asians consumed the most fish out of all significant racial groups.
Freshwater fish appear to have much greater concentrations of PFAS since they are residing in contaminated water sources, according to Reade. They accumulate in our bodies, but fish and other animals also accumulate them. Communities that engage in more subsistence farming and fishing will therefore be crucial for intervention.
According to Reade, the results were in line with earlier PFAS studies. For instance, the Asian/Pacific Islander Community Exposures (ACE) Project in California looked at PFAS and heavy metals in the blood of Chinese and Vietnamese individuals living in San Francisco and San Jose, respectively. In comparison to other groups across California, it discovered higher amounts in both. According to her, it is crucial to recognize these racial demographic inequalities since doing so can enable intervention and outreach initiatives in these communities to be more effective.
She suggested that you focus on the areas you are currently cleaning up so that attempts can be made to discover sources of high PFAS contamination.
However, Liu and Reade agreed that the U.S.’s absence of regulation of synthetic chemicals makes minimizing exposure particularly challenging. However, Liu continued, there are measures that show promise and may have an impact on federal regulations. A law was established in Maine requiring manufacturers to report goods with PFAS added on purpose. Any product with PFAS introduced purposefully will not be allowed to be sold in the state after January 1, 2030. Additionally, a proposal in the European Union recently called for an import restriction as well as a permanent ban on chemicals.
Manufacturers might eliminate PFAS “simply for the ease of their own supply chain,” Liu said. “Manufacturers who manufacture products to be sold globally.”
While it’s important to look into PFAS and demand transparency from producers, Reade argued that ultimately, it shouldn’t have been up to consumers to stay away from these dangerous substances.
“In order for us to be protected as customers, we shouldn’t need to know what’s in the items we buy. We shouldn’t need to be told that we shouldn’t buy this stain-resistant couch because it might contain PFAS, said Reade. “Our primary focus should be on enhancing the safety of our products. One of those things is to stop using PFAS unless it’s really necessary for people’s health, safety, and the operation of society.