I was recently quoted in an article by the legal publication, Law360, sharing my opinion that PFAS may be the “next asbestos” in toxic tort litigation. That was before a study came out in July that found PFAS throughout the food supply chain in white rice, eggs, red meat, seafood, and coffee. Sadly, the more I read about PFAS, the more I fear my opinion will become reality sooner than later. Indeed, some scientists contend PFAS has "contaminated every corner of the globe." 

All that said, the science on the health impacts of PFAS exposure is still developing. So far, these and other synthetic chemicals have been "linked" to multiple health problems – scientists sometimes refer to this as an "association" – but the question of whether there is a causal connection is up in the air. Particularly from a dose-response perspective. Meaning, what intensity, frequency, and duration of exposure to PFAS is required to cause an adverse health impact in humans?

Beyond the science, there is the practical question of what can be done to curtail or eliminate PFAS exposure given its ubiquity in our world. The scientists in this article contend its use needs to be banned. Which sounds good in theory, but what steps need to be taken to achieve that objective? I will continue to monitor this issue as both the science and the efforts to limit PFAS exposure continue to evolve.