New regulations have been introduced in Australia to reduce the levels of harmful “forever chemicals,” specifically per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), in drinking water. These synthetic chemicals, which number over 4,000, are widely utilised in various industrial and consumer products, including firefighting foams and non-stick cookware. Their nickname, “forever chemicals,” arises from their resistance to decomposition in the environment, allowing them to persist in soil and infiltrate water supplies.
PFAS exposure has been associated with a range of health concerns, which include increased cholesterol levels, hormonal disturbances, kidney issues, and even more severe risks like cancer and disorders affecting the thyroid and bone marrow. Professor Oliver Jones from RMIT University described the updated guidelines as a “significant shift” in health policy.
Although these new standards have generally received praise from experts, some caution that challenges lie ahead in their implementation. Such adjustments may influence broader environmental standards, compliance requirements, and risk assessment frameworks. Professor Stuart Khan, head of the School of Engineering at the University of Sydney, expressed confidence in the updated health guidelines but also indicated that the necessary advanced water treatment processes could incur costs that would be passed on to consumers, particularly affecting smaller regional communities.
This situation reflects a troubling paradox where the financial burden of cleaning up contamination often falls on the public rather than the polluting industries, contradicting the “polluter pays” principle. Critics argue this leads to a scenario where profits are privatised while costs are socialised, raising concerns about fairness and accountability in environmental management.
Further emphasising the need for public awareness, Professor Denis O’Carroll highlighted a recent Australian Bureau of Statistics report indicating nearly universal PFAS presence in the blood of Australians. Fortunately, most drinking water remains PFAS-free, prompting inquiries into other exposure routes and ways to minimise those risks.
Dr Cheng Zhang from the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology underscored the encouraging nature of these stricter guidelines yet pointed out that Australia’s benchmarks are still less stringent than those in countries like the USA and Canada. The varying international standards complicate global efforts to phase out PFAS, as each nation has different criteria for measuring and reporting these chemicals.
In summary, while the recent guidelines mark a considerable step forward in addressing the hazards posed by PFAS, experts stress that more comprehensive measures are necessary to ensure public safety and effective management of these persistent chemicals.