A recent US study concluded that eating one fish of a certain type of fish is equivalent to drinking a month of water containing harmful chemicals called “eternal chemicals” because they do not break down in the environment.
This type is represented by freshwater fish. The study was conducted by the scientists of the Environmental Working Group, published on their website and authored by the “eurekalert” website.
The Environmental Working Group is an American non-profit organization specializing in research on agricultural chemicals, toxics and drinking water pollutants.
As for the harmful chemicals contained in these fish, they are known under the scientific name of “PFOS” (perfluorooctanesulfonic acid).
The researchers estimated that eating one fish a year is equivalent to drinking PFOA-saturated water for a full month.
one fish per year
The study supports calls for strict regulation of PFOA and other harmful chemicals known as PFAS, including PFOA and PFOA.
The researchers found that the average amounts of PFAS in freshwater fish were 280 times higher than the chemicals detected in some non-freshwater fish.
Data from tests, from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration, have shown that consuming a single serving of freshwater fish can result in similar exposure to PFAS as daily consumption of fish purchased in store for a year.
“People who consume freshwater fish, particularly those who regularly fish and eat fish, are at risk of having concerning levels of PFAS in their bodies,” said EWG lead scientist Dr David Andrews and one of the main authors of the study.
The chemical found in perpetually high concentrations in freshwater fish was PFOS. “These test results are impressive,” said Scott Faber, senior vice president of government affairs at Environmental Working Group Scientists. “Eating a sea bass is like drinking BFO contaminated water for a month.”
Consumption of freshwater fish contaminated with PFOS can lead to a significant increase in serum concentrations of the chemical, leading to potential health risks. Even infrequent consumption of freshwater fish can increase OBF levels in the body.
Risk for the health
PFAS are among the most persistent compounds in existence, contaminating everything from drinking water to food, food packaging and personal care products. PFAS accumulate in our bodies and are never broken down in the environment, and are found in the blood of almost everyone, including newborn babies.
Very low doses of PFAS in drinking water have been associated with immune system suppression, including reduced vaccine effectiveness and increased risk of certain cancers. PFAS has been linked to increased cholesterol, reproductive and growth problems, and other health issues.
More than 200 million Americans could be drinking water contaminated with PFAS. The problem is likely to be worse than has already been confirmed, underscoring the need for rapid regulatory action.
What are the potential harms of PFAS?
PFAS may be implicated in developmental problems, cancer, liver damage, immune system disorders, vaccine resistance, thyroid disease, fertility disorders, and high cholesterol.
Numerous studies of PFOS and PFOA in humans and animals have shown a wide range of potential health effects, including decreased fertility in women, decreased sperm count, low body weight, birth, cancer and death in the animals studied.
According to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, some PFAS are persistent, meaning they do not break down in the environment, and some are also bioaccumulative, meaning the amount builds up in the body. over time. PFAS has been found both in the environment and in blood samples from the general US population.
Toxicity studies in animals exposed to certain PFAs confirm links between the chemicals and changes in cholesterol levels, hormones and the immune system. decreased fertility and an increased risk of certain types of cancer.
Studies in which animals were given high levels of PFAS showed effects such as lower birth weight, delayed puberty, and higher cholesterol levels.
Leave a Reply