WHO To Scrap Weak PFAS Drinking Water Guidelines After Alleged Corruption (theguardian.com) 20
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: The World Health Organization (WHO) is poised to scrap controversial drinking water guidelines proposed for two toxic PFAS "forever chemicals." The move follows allegations that the process of developing the figures was corrupted by industry-linked researchers aiming to undercut strict new US PFAS limits and weaken standards in the developing world. Many independent scientists charged 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 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.
Though the earlier guidelines were drafts, and proposed rules all go through a revision process, the WHO is conducting an entirely new review of scientific literature and disbanded the panel of scientists who developed the draft guidelines. It established a new panel with fewer industry-linked scientists and more regulatory officials, moves that have not happened in other revisions, said Betsy Southerland, a former EPA manager in the agency's water division. "This is unprecedented, but the WHO got unprecedented criticism," Southerland said. The WHO told the Guardian in a statement that the moves are part of "an ongoing process" and will include guidelines for other PFAS compounds.
Scientists critical of the limits charged that the WHO ignored high-quality research to create a sense of doubt about the science around PFAS. EPA and EU regulators carried out an exhaustive literature review to find all human and animal studies, and used the best of those papers to establish their limits, Southerland said. The WHO, however, ignored all human studies and determined most animal studies were "too flawed" to use, Southerland said. The organization concluded there was not enough research to set health-based guidelines, which she called a "shocking decision." "There is far more health data for these chemicals than has ever been available for any pollutant in the history of the WHO," Southerland said. Instead, the WHO largely based its guidelines on its review of technological research, but ignored most of those studies as well, Southerland said. The body concluded filtration systems could reliably remove PFOA and PFOS at 100ppt, even though US water utilities remove it below four ppt. The decisions bear industry's prints, researchers say.
Though the earlier guidelines were drafts, and proposed rules all go through a revision process, the WHO is conducting an entirely new review of scientific literature and disbanded the panel of scientists who developed the draft guidelines. It established a new panel with fewer industry-linked scientists and more regulatory officials, moves that have not happened in other revisions, said Betsy Southerland, a former EPA manager in the agency's water division. "This is unprecedented, but the WHO got unprecedented criticism," Southerland said. The WHO told the Guardian in a statement that the moves are part of "an ongoing process" and will include guidelines for other PFAS compounds.
Scientists critical of the limits charged that the WHO ignored high-quality research to create a sense of doubt about the science around PFAS. EPA and EU regulators carried out an exhaustive literature review to find all human and animal studies, and used the best of those papers to establish their limits, Southerland said. The WHO, however, ignored all human studies and determined most animal studies were "too flawed" to use, Southerland said. The organization concluded there was not enough research to set health-based guidelines, which she called a "shocking decision." "There is far more health data for these chemicals than has ever been available for any pollutant in the history of the WHO," Southerland said. Instead, the WHO largely based its guidelines on its review of technological research, but ignored most of those studies as well, Southerland said. The body concluded filtration systems could reliably remove PFOA and PFOS at 100ppt, even though US water utilities remove it below four ppt. The decisions bear industry's prints, researchers say.
Sounds criminal to me (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Who is a terrorist? Who are you dehumanising and for what role? Be specific. You talk about "these people" in an article that talks about scientists, industry reps, water providers, and a medical agency making recommendations.
Who is being poisoned and by whom? The WHO (which is who this article is about) can't make any decision to poison me. That is up to my local government and local water authority.
Key words (Score:3)
"with fewer industry-linked scientists "
Fewer?? please..
Experts will always be "linked" to the field they are qualified to be considered experts. Scientists with no financial link to the industry are the most accurate and unbiased way to understand fact as we know it. This is why we tenure educators, to assure unbiased dissemination of knowledge
Re: (Score:2)
Experts will always be "linked"
There's a difference between being "linked" and being under the direct and current employ against the interests of the board on which you are supposed to serve. This isn't a black and white issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Environmental scientists, medical researchers, chemists, and public health officials are all competent to read a study and interpret the results, even if they aren't experts in PFAS production per se. You don't need any chemical industry chemists sitting on that panel.
Re: (Score:1)
Never again (Score:2, Funny)
We won't get fooled again, WHO
Name & shame (Score:5, Insightful)
A key part left out of the summary (Score:3)
From TFA:
Though the guidelines are non-binding, they are considered important because environmental officials in many nations around the world will use them to set legal limits, and they will be referenced as industry mounts legal challenges to the US limits.
Remember how the ISDS [wikipedia.org] started allowing corporations to sue governments when regulations, including basic environmental protection like this, caused them to make a bit less money?
If the industries polluting the world with PFAs can buy off enough scientists to get a WHO recommendation of an acceptable level of PFAs that is higher than the countries trying to regulate them, it opens the door for them to sue countries and force them to use the WHO recommendation rather than their own.
How nice of them! (Score:1)
Looks like WHO is really just bowing to anyone and be their b##ch, but now we know they will not back-paddle on bowing deep to totalitarian regimes like China, but they will back-paddle on poisoning potentially millions of people.
So we got that going for us under the amazing protection of the WHO, which I guess counts for something. How nice and considerate of them!
WHO? (Score:3)
Okay, sure. It sounds nice for WHO to have a standard for "safe" drinking water, but how/when do they enforce it? There's a LOT of countries where the drinking water doesn't even have safe levels of sewage/bacterial contaminates.
I'm not avoiding the tap water in Bangalore for fear of PFAS.
Re:WHO? (Score:4, Informative)
WHO doesn't enforce anything, they just set standards and make recommendations. It's up to individual countries whether they adopt those standards and how to enforce them. However those standards give a common benchmark to use by other agencies and organizations that aren't experts in public health. For example, if 2 countries share a common body of water, they might make a treaty to abide by all WHO guidelines in terms of what they allow to be discharged into that body of water.
Kettle Calls Pot Copper-Colored (Score:3)
"The [WHO] guidelines would have allowed far more PFAS in drinking water than what is allowed by the US Environmental Protection Agency."
[Record scratch.]
Yeah, that's presumptive evidence of shenanigans if I've ever heard it.
Are PFAS the chemicals they put in the water (Score:2)
...and they just go Scott-free into the night? (Score:2)
>> disbanded the panel of scientists who developed the draft guidelines.
They need to punish these corrupt so-called scientists and the companies behind them by publishing their names.