The PFAS class of chemicals, which are found ubiquitously in consumer products, offer “no practical benefit,” according to a recent study.
First, here’s a brief synopsis via The Endocrine Society of what PFAS are and why you don’t want them in your tissues:
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are manmade chemicals used as oil and water repellents and coatings for common products including cookware, carpets, and textiles. These endocrine-disrupting chemicals do not break down when they are released into the environment, and they continue to accumulate over time.
Exposure to PFAS chemicals can cause adverse health effects. Studies conducted near Parkersburg, West Virginia found a probable link between perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) exposure and six disease categories: diagnosed high cholesterol, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and pregnancy-induced hypertension.
Despite their proven negative health ramifications, per the CDC, PFAS chemicals are not only legal but they are everywhere: “nonstick cookware, water-repellent clothing, stain resistant fabrics and carpets, some cosmetics, some firefighting foams, and products that resist grease, water, and oil.”
And, it turns out, they might not even serve any utility.
Via The Guardian (emphasis added):
“A new peer-reviewed study calls into question how well PFAS-based products repel water and stains in furniture, shoes, clothing, carpeting, outdoor gear and other consumer goods made of fabric.
Most water and stain repellents applied to fabrics worldwide use toxic PFAS as a main ingredient, and though the controversial chemicals are in thousands of products, water and stain repellency are two of their main consumer functions.
The study, which did not name brands, compared the performances of furniture fabric treated with PFAS to untreated fabric. It found the types of fabric, wear and how consumers manage stains to be much more important in determining how well fabrics repelled water and stains, and the study’s authors characterized PFAS as having “no practical benefit”.”
(More study to attempt to replicate these findings would be highly desirable. In the interest of full transparency, the Green Policy Institute, the organization that conducted the study, would seem to have an inherent interest in forming negative conclusions about PFAS.)
The question must be asked: assuming that PFAS chemicals are unnecessary or could be replaced with equally effective chemicals that are non-toxic to humans, what is the point for companies of including these chemicals in their products if they do not work as advertised?
Wouldn’t it be more cost-effective to simply cut out whatever expense is incurred through the purchase of PFAS and become more economically competitive in the marketplace in the process?
Also for our VIPs: ‘No Safe Place on Earth’: Study Finds Air Pollution Is Worldwide Environmental Catastrophe
Regardless of the accuracy of this study’s findings pertaining to this particular chemical class, what is indisputable is that we are saturated in the modern world with harmful chemicals. We are bombarded with industrial chemicals and byproducts that demonstrably affect the human nervous, endocrine, and reproductive systems nonstop through the water supply, the air, and the food supply.
This is the true environmental catastrophe that goes unaddressed by the corporate state while they henpeck you over your gas stove.
