The World Health Organization (WHO) is poised to scrap controversial drinking water guidelines for two toxic PFAS “forever chemicals.”
The move comes amid allegations that the process for compiling the figures was corrupted by researchers with ties to industry, seeking to undermine tough new U.S. PFAS limits and relax standards in developing countries.
Many independent scientists have claimed that the proposed WHO drinking water guidelines for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) were weak, did not fully protect human health, ignored credible research, and were far above the limits set by regulators in the US and EU. The guidelines would have allowed far more PFAS in drinking water than what is allowed by the US Environmental Protection Agency.
While the earlier guidelines were drafts and the proposed rules are all undergoing a review process, WHO is conducting an entirely new review of scientific literature and disbanding the panel of scientists that developed the draft guidelines. It is appointing a new panel with fewer scientists with ties to industry and more regulatory officials, steps that have not been taken in other revisions, said Betsy Southerland, a former EPA manager in the agency’s water division.
“This is unprecedented, but the WHO has faced unprecedented criticism,” Southerland said.
The WHO told the Guardian in a statement that the measures are part of “an ongoing process” and that guidelines will be forthcoming for other PFAS compounds.
PFAS are a class of about 15,000 chemicals that are commonly used to make products that are resistant to water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not break down naturally; they build up and have been linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.
The EPA has determined that virtually no level of exposure to PFOA and PFOS in drinking water is safe. This year, the regulatory limits for the compounds were set at four parts per trillion (ppt), the level at which testing technology can reliably measure and remove PFAS from water.
The WHO proposed guidelines of 100ppt for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water in 2022. While the guidelines are not binding, they are considered important because environmental officials in many countries around the world will use them to set legal limits, and they will be cited if industry mounts legal challenges to the U.S. limits.
Scientists critical of the limits accused WHO of ignoring high-quality research to cast doubt on the science surrounding PFAS. The EPA and EU regulators conducted an exhaustive literature search to find all human and animal studies and used the best of those studies to set their limits, Southerland said.
However, the WHO ignored all human studies and determined that most animal studies were “too flawed” to use, Southerland said. The organization concluded that there was not enough research to make health guidelines, which it called a “shocking decision.”
“There is far more health data on these chemicals than has ever been available for any pollutant in the history of WHO,” Southerland said.
Instead, WHO based its guidance largely on its review of technological research, but ignored most of that research, Southerland said. The agency concluded that filtration systems could reliably remove PFOA and PFOS at 100 ppt, even though U.S. water utilities remove less than four ppt.
According to researchers, the industry’s decisions are reflected in them.
after newsletter promotion
They pointed to Michael Dourson, who was nominated by Donald Trump in 2017 to oversee the EPA’s chemical safety division but was forced to withdraw his name after failing to gain sufficient support, in part because of his alleged history of producing industry-friendly studies that supported chemical companies’ safety claims.
Emails published by the New York Times show his close ties to the American Chemistry Council even while he was serving as an adviser to the EPA. Among other things, he gave the powerful industry group permission to edit a research paper.
The WHO document cites Dourson’s work at least 17 times.
Others involved in the process worked as consultants for or were paid by companies including chemical giant Chemours and U.S. water companies, which opposed strict PFAS limits.
Dourson said his position and that of other scientists on the guidelines were not influenced by industry. He said there was a high level of uncertainty in the human and animal studies, and that the WHO’s approach was reasonable.
“They did a good investigation of the data in their own way and a systematic review, and they said, ‘We can’t make a specific decision because there’s too much uncertainty,'” Dourson said. “This is a complex problem, one person or, hell, one group — it’s hard for them to understand the whole thing.”
But questioning the scientific findings is part of a broader industry effort, said Linda Birnbaum, former head of the EPA’s toxic substances program.
“That’s a tactic that some of the people protesting the EPA’s new regulations are using,” she said.