Chapter 3Impact of PFAS on human health
3.1Per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are pervasive and persistent in the environment and have been associated with certain health effects, including but not limited to: cancers, thyroid disease, kidney disease, high cholesterol, and impacts on the reproductive system and foetuses.
3.2Australian government agencies have so far taken the view that levels of PFAS exposure within the general Australian population are low. Following more recent international research findings and changes in recommended safe drinking levels in the United States, consideration is now being given to tightening certain guideline recommendations regarding exposure to some PFAS chemicals in drinking water. Additionally, various authorities have issued warnings around the consumption of foods growing in contaminated lands and waters.
3.3This chapter begins by outlining current health advice and health guidelines in Australia, then recounts evidence received from a community subjected to PFAS contamination, the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community in Jervis Bay Territory. It also presents evidence from other PFAS affected communities in Richmond and in the Blue Mountains, both in NSW.
3.4The chapter then outlines evidence regarding the mental health impacts of living with high PFAS exposure, and presents proposals made by inquiry participants on actions that can be taken now to prevent further potential harms, as well as proposals for long-term scientific studies that could produce more conclusive results.
3.5The impact of PFAS on human health is a complicated and contested subject. The committee has received a significant amount of evidence already, and some of this is represented in this chapter. The committee intends to discuss the science around PFAS and human health in more detail, and present more of the evidence it has received, in a future report.
Background
Government advice on PFAS and human health
3.6The Environmental Health Standing Committee (enHealth) has members from Australian, state and territory health departments and research councils, and their New Zealand counterparts. enHealth advises the Australian Health Protection Committee (AHPC) on environmental health policy, including in relation to PFAS. The AHPC is the key decision-making committee for health emergencies, chaired by the Chief Medical Officer and including all state and territory Chief Health Officers.
3.7The most recent enHealth Guidance Statement on PFAS was included as part of the Department of Health and Aged Care (Health Department) submission to this inquiry. The enHealth Guidance Statement consolidated the Australian government's PFAS health guidance and included updates from the Australian National University (ANU) PFAS Health Study and the FSANZ 27th Australian Total Diet Study.
3.8The enHealth Guidance Statement covered several areas including the levels of PFAS in the food supply, the health effects associated with PFAS exposure, pregnancy, breast feeding, and the current utility of conducting blood tests.
3.9enHealth noted that the Health Department has developed health-based guidance values in the form of a tolerable daily intake for PFOS, PFOA, and PFHxS for use in human health risk assessments, including site investigations across Australia.
3.10With respect to FSANZ's 27th Australian Total Diet Study, enHealth noted that FSANZ found:
PFAS levels in the general food supply are well below Australian guidance values;
estimated dietary exposure to PFOS for the general Australian population is well below the tolerable daily intake; and
no other PFAS were detected in the study.
3.11enHealth therefore stated that the FSANZ study 'indicates that there are no public health and safety concerns in relation to PFAS from overall dietary exposure for the general Australian population'. In relation to the general population, enHealth considered it 'extremely unlikely that specific foods consumed over a period would all be sourced from a contaminated site' and that 'occasionally eating produce with low levels of PFAS is not considered to be a public health concern'. In sum, the enHealth Guidance Statement advised that 'current evidence suggests PFAS levels in the general Australian food supply are very low and the regulation of PFAS chemical contaminants in the general food supply is therefore not required'.
3.12However, enHealth acknowledged some local variation to the general advice for PFAS contaminated areas:
In some instances, advice is issued by local authorities in specific areas where PFAS contamination has been identified, as people within these areas may frequently consume food or water with some PFAS contamination. This local advice takes into consideration the Australian guidance values and specific local circumstances and may include encouraging people to consume produce from multiple sources, and in some cases, limiting consumption of home-grown produce, home-produced livestock, and locally harvested food such as fish, and PFAS contaminated water to reduce exposure.
3.13The enHealth Guidance Statement endorsed the findings regarding the health effects identified by the Expert Health Panel on PFAS, namely that the differences reported in the scientific studies between people who have the highest exposure to PFAS and those who have had low exposure, are generally small. enHealth stated that these small differences 'are unlikely to be important to health outcomes'.
3.14enHealth also discussed the 'potential associations between PFAS exposure and increased risk of two uncommon cancers, namely testicular and kidney cancer'. enHealth noted:
…much of this evidence relates specifically to PFOA, and not PFOS or PFHxS which are more common in Australia. However, studies on these cancers remain conflicting and associations have only been observed in high exposure groups such as workers in international factories where PFOA is produced.
3.15Importantly, enHealth stated:
An association means that there is a relationship between PFAS exposure and the above health effects. This does not mean that the PFAS exposure caused the health effect. A causative relationship between the above health effects and PFAS exposure has not been established to date.
3.16Finally, noting that the science and understanding of these issues will continue to evolve, enHealth recommended 'exposure to PFAS be minimised wherever possible', particularly given 'the ability of these chemicals to persist in humans and in the environment'.[13]
3.17The enHealth Guidance Statement observed:
Foetuses can be exposed to PFAS when their mother's blood crosses the placenta during pregnancy. However, the scientific research to date does not indicate that PFAS exposure during pregnancy is a major contributor to poor health outcomes in either pregnant women or their babies.
3.18Nonetheless, enHealth recommended pregnant women minimise their exposure to PFAS as a precaution.
3.19The enHealth Guidance Statement observed that the significant health benefits of breast feeding 'outweigh any potential health risks to an infant or child from the possibility of any PFAS being transferred through breast milk'.
3.20Therefore, enHealth did 'not recommend that mothers living in or around sites contaminated with PFAS cease breast feeding'.
3.21enHealth also stated that blood tests are not recommended for PFAS exposure because there is insufficient scientific evidence to inform clinical management:
A blood test can measure the level of PFAS in a person's blood. If PFAS is detected, this tells a person that they have been exposed to PFAS. These results could then be compared with the levels seen in the general Australian population or in other countries using published biomonitoring data. However, there is at present insufficient scientific evidence for a medical practitioner to be able to tell a person whether their blood level will make them sick now or later in life, or if any current health problems are related to the PFAS levels found in their blood.
Therefore, individual blood tests are not recommended as they cannot determine whether any medical condition is attributable to exposure to PFAS and these tests have no current value in informing an individual's clinical management, including diagnosis, treatment, or prognosis in terms of increased risk of particular conditions over time.
3.22The Health Department noted that the Health Based Guidance Values developed by FSANZ and the enHealth Guidance Statement are referenced by all state and territory health departments and Commonwealth agencies.
3.23For example, the NSW government submission stated that it is guided by the PFAS National Environmental Management Plan 2.0 (agreed by the Commonwealth and state heads of EPAs in October 2019) and enHealth's advice on PFAS. Further, while 'PFAS has not definitively been shown to be a cause of disease in humans…enHealth continues to recommend exposure to PFAS be minimised wherever possible. Accordingly, the NSW Government is taking a precautionary approach'.
Case study: Wreck Bay Aboriginal community
3.24The following section provides evidence from a community subjected to PFAS contamination in the Jervis Bay Territory on the southeast coast. On 20 January 2025, the committee visited the small Aboriginal community of Wreck Bay to see and hear first-hand the experiences of people living on land directly contaminated by PFAS used at the adjacent Defence Force base and held a public hearing in Nowra the following day. The contamination in Wreck Bay was caused by the historic use of PFAS-containing firefighting foam at two Defence sites on two hills above Wreck Bay that run into Summercloud Creek, Flat Rock Creek and Mary Creek. These three creeks lead down to the Wreck Bay Village and the beach where the community lived, bathed in its water, and gathered their food.
3.25The contamination of the land, waterways, and traditional foods by PFAS, the loss of cultural heritage and ability to continue traditional cultural practices, as well as the status of remediation, are covered in other chapters. This chapter considers evidence from Wreck Bay community members and others about health impacts.
Evidence from members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
3.26In Nowra, several members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community spoke to the committee about their health challenges, and experiences of loss and death among family members and in the community.
3.27The committee heard evidence of an abnormally large number of deaths among the Aboriginal population in Wreck Bay, including many fit young men in their 40s who had worked at the neighbouring Defence Force base, but also many women and other community members who did not work on the base.
3.28Mr Clive Freeman told the committee that his father passed away from bowel cancer in his 40s. The genetic tests done before his death concluded that the bowel cancer was 'caused locally and not genetically'.
3.29Mr Keiran Assheton, from Wreck Bay, told the committee about several cancer deaths that he attributed unequivocally to the PFAS contamination from the Defence Force base:
Wreck Bay has a problem with PFAS—we know this as well. We know the Defence Force have admitted that their use of PFAS in operations such as firefighting training has contaminated the local area. Wreck Bay has horrific problems with cancer as a result of this, and we have horrific problems with other serious health conditions. We have the highest cancer rates in Australian history; this has impacted me and my family personally. Both of my grandparents were murdered by cancer. My mother's younger brother, my uncle, was also murdered by cancer. My own mother is currently being murdered by late-stage cancer. I'm speaking only of my own immediate family, but there are many, many people—of all ages—out at Wreck Bay that have been murdered or are being murdered by this contamination. I use the word 'murder' because these aren't natural deaths; they're caused by the actions of people. When a person's actions cause the death of another, we call that murder in any civilised society. This should be called murder as well, because that's exactly what it is.
3.30Mr Keiron Brown, a traditional owner from Wreck Bay who now lives in Sydney, but was born and raised in the community, told the committee about his own tumours, the very rare eye cancer that killed his mother, and the death of his cultural mother:
As a young boy, I used to play out at back beach where Marys Creek is. We used to slide off the sand dunes and jump in the water, and there were all these white and yellow foam bubbles there. We used to just dive into them, thinking they were just there from the water, not knowing that they were actually contaminated. Now, as an adult, I have got a body full of benign tumours. I'm not sure if any of them are cancerous. I have quite a few of them on my back.
When I was seven years old, my mum passed away. She had a very rare form of cancer. It was in her eye. When she found out about that, she had a very quick time till death. It wasn't a long way away; it was very short. We weren't even allowed to go on a trip out of the area. I wanted to say that.
My other mother, my cultural mother, also became very sick recently—a year ago. She'd been sick for a while. It started off with dialysis and diabetes, and then it went to heart problems, until she finally passed away a year ago. She had all these things all in one. I believe that that is all from PFAS—everything that has happened in my family, with both of my mothers and myself.
Evidence from a former medical doctor at Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
3.31The committee heard evidence from Dr David Goldberg, a practising medical practitioner in general practice who was the Wreck Bay doctor from 2000 to 2008. Dr Goldberg noted that he was not an expert toxicologist, and that since leaving his position as the Wreck Bay GP in 2008, he has maintained an informal association with Wreck Bay.
3.32In his eight years as the Wreck Bay doctor, Dr Goldberg had two people from the same family die under 50. One died of bowel cancer, the other of breast cancer. He noted that family cancer clusters can exist as well as community clusters, without necessarily implicating PFAS.
3.33However, since he left his position in 2008, Dr Goldberg was aware of the number of people who have died in Wreck Bay and, in most cases, the cause of death. He told the committee that many people are dying, mostly from cancer, and most 'died at a younger age than we would expect from some of the cancers that they had, and that some died from heart disease'.
3.34Dr Goldberg pointed to statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare that found for the decade between 2010 and 2020, Wreck Bay was the No. 1 community in Australia for likelihood of dying under the age of 75.
3.35Dr Goldberg noted the international evidence suggesting 'PFAS is a very likely carcinogen and certainly an immunosuppressant and is also associated with a modest increase in blood cholesterol'. He also noted that 'the Wreck Bay community has definitely been exposed to this family of chemicals'.
3.36Accordingly, Dr Goldberg was convinced that there is a cancer cluster in Wreck Bay, very likely caused by PFAS:
The epidemiologists will tell you…that nobody can prove a cancer cluster. It's statistically not possible by the very definition of its small sample. But we know a cancer cluster when we see one, even though we can't statistically prove it.
I am convinced that Wreck Bay is being subjected to a cancer cluster and that the very likely cause is PFAS exposure. My feeling is that we've got a very likely carcinogen implicated in a cancer cluster—which can't be proven, but, as a doctor, the main reason that I'm here is to say that, on the basis of my medical intelligence over the last 50 years, this is a cancer cluster.
Screening and testing of members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
3.37Community members and other witnesses argued for an urgent need for medical screening of all members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community and criticised the reluctance of agencies involved to conduct blood testing for PFAS. The Australian Government previously funded a voluntary blood testing program which commenced in November 2016 and ran until April 2019. The blood testing program was only ever available to residents of Williamstown, Oakey and Katherine. A recommendation from a previous parliamentary inquiry, undertaken by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, was to 'extend the program to be available in additional areas'.
3.38Given the possible impacts of PFAS on members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community, Dr Goldberg recommended that:
all community members be offered free standard medical screening including blood tests for dyslipidaemia, faecal occult blood tests, and mammograms for women; and
a preventative care clinic with a primary care doctor be established in Wreck Bay.
3.39Mrs Tamara Mitchell, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community Council (WBACC), told the committee that the Commonwealth government has refused to undertake any blood testing for PFAS for community members living on land and waterways contaminated by PFAS from Commonwealth Defence facilities.
3.40Similarly, Ms Annette Brown, Chairperson of WBACC, stated that no monitoring of any community members for PFAS exposure has occurred. Consequently, there is no data available for trying to determine causation and no scientific evidence that could definitively link the PFAS contamination to the high levels of deaths in the community.
3.41Ms Celia Perkins, Acting Associate Secretary at the Department of Defence, was asked why Defence has not provided blood testing for residents of Wreck Bay, and replied:
Defence has considered it, but at earlier points in the investigation program, at a number of sites, some limited blood testing was undertaken by the department of health. The Department of Defence isn't in a position to [provide blood testing at Wreck Bay]. Part of the reason it is not currently government policy to undertake blood testing is that there is insufficient consensus on what PFAS levels in blood might mean, and so, until there is a consensus around what the health indicators are—it has been a reasonable, informed view of the medical community that most of us will have PFAS in our blood; it is a very persistent chemical—we won't know what those levels mean. It is quite distressing, but there's no way to really understand what that blood test tells us about health effects.
Class action on behalf of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal Community
3.42The committee heard evidence from Mr Craig Allsopp, Joint Head of Class Actions at Shine Lawyers, about why the class action settlement on behalf of the Wreck Bay community did not take the health effects of PFAS exposure into account despite the abnormally high cancer rates in the community.
3.43Mr Allsopp emphasised to the committee that the Wreck Bay class action related solely to economic and cultural loss and excluded personal injury and health issues because of a lack of provable scientific evidence on the causal health effects of PFAS:
Basically, the science wasn't there, from a legal perspective, and it still may not be there, despite what seems like overwhelming anecdotal evidence. If the science gets there, or if there's some further development, it's completely open to the community to seek further redress for the terrible, terrible stories about personal injuries, health issues, cancers and everything else the community has had to suffer.
Community recommendations for action on the health effects
3.44The committee heard evidence from members of the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community about the complex governance of Wreck Bay and the consequent importance of the Commonwealth and its agencies cooperating positively with the community to monitor contamination, exposure, and the health effects of PFAS.
3.45While other chapters of this report discuss the governance of Wreck Bay in terms of, for example, Commonwealth remediation of contaminated land and waterways in Wreck Bay, this section notes the impact of those governance arrangements on community health.
3.46Ms Brown said WBACC recognises that the high level of PFAS contamination is here to stay. One of her key concerns was monitoring the health of the children in the community. In this regard, she noted that Wreck Bay itself is complicated because it is Commonwealth territory and, as a non-self-governing territory, it has no state government:
So the Commonwealth needs to play a strong role in how we manage the future for our community, not only for us now but for future generations—monitoring health, monitoring the environment and having a formal arrangement with the Commonwealth and all the Commonwealth agencies that have responsibilities for servicing the territory. I think education will play an important part in the future as we hand down knowledge through the schools and ensure that that is part of the curriculum.
3.47Ms Brown also recognised that 'causation connected to PFAS may never come'. Therefore, she recommended that the Commonwealth establish a monitoring committee that involves relevant Commonwealth ministers, officials and Aboriginal people from Wreck Bay and that it reports to parliament. The committee would monitor the health effects of PFAS, particularly on children, establish a database, inform the community in a language they understand, and develop strategies for how the community and the department deal with the health effects of PFAS contamination. In this regard, Ms Brown noted that the Wreck Bay community currently relies solely on second-hand information.
3.48In evidence to the committee Dr Goldberg highlighted a current shortage of primary health resources available to not only the Wreck Bay community, but the region.
There's a shortage of doctors, and it's hard to get continuity of care. So anybody in the Bay and Basin area, irrespective of their community, is probably getting suboptimal primary care.
3.49When asked what Wreck Bay needs in terms of health support, Dr Goldberg argued the need for improved medical screening and better access to primary health care:
I would make sure that they had free standard medical screening—the kinds of stuff we do for anybody—mammograms for women, faecal occult blood tests for everybody. But, instead of using the normal, over-50 range, I'd bring it down to 30 or offer it to the whole community. A lot of these screening tests are very cheap. And I'd make sure that they actually had access to a primary care doctor who was there so they wouldn't have to put petrol in the car and go and find one or drive off to one.
Evidence from Richmond and the Blue Mountains
3.50The committee held a hearing in Penrith, NSW, where it received evidence from two nearby communities affected by PFAS contamination—Richmond and the Blue Mountains. Richmond is a known PFAS hotspot due to its proximity to a Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) base where PFAS-containing firefighting foam was used. The Blue Mountains was not thought to be a PFAS hotspot until testing by Sydney Water in June 2024 revealed elevated levels of PFAS at the Cascade Filtration Plant in Katoomba.
3.51While much of this evidence is covered in a later chapter on water, excerpts are provided in this section on the health effects, and in the subsequent section on the mental health impacts caused by concerns about PFAS contamination.
3.52Mr Alastair McLaren, a farmer, told the committee that his family ran a small farmers market business called Paddock to Plate, selling predominantly grass-fed beef produced without chemicals. However, in 2018, he discovered that one of his leased farms in Richmond was impacted by PFAS contamination from the firefighting foam used for training purposes on the Richmond RAAF base:
It had drained into the waterways, manmade drains, on the farm. This farm is directly across the road from the RAAF base and occupies the land between the base and the Hawkesbury River.
3.53Mr McLaren wanted his family of six to have blood tests so they would know if they had elevated levels of PFAS from eating the beef they produced. When Mr McLaren's family were unable to access free blood tests, Channel Nine, an Australian television company, paid for their blood testing:
The results shocked us. Our entire family were over the 95th percentile for PFAS in our blood. Our kids have spent their formative years with a high-toxicity, endocrine-disrupting, likely carcinogenic chemical in their blood.
3.54Mr McLaren also pointed out that the authorities refused to do blood tests of his cattle. When his family funded the testing of their cattle, he stated that the results were more than ten times higher than what the Health Department would recommend for eating just 200 grams of his beef a month. When Mr McLaren was alerted to these high levels, he shut down their family owned and operated market business, as they could not 'in good conscious', continue selling contaminated meat to their customers. Mr McLaren never received any compensation from the government. The only advice Mr McLaren received from government authorities was 'not to eat the beef but it was okay to sell'.
3.55Similarly, Ms Joanna Pickford told the committee that her property near the Richmond Airforce base was also contaminated by PFAS, that her chickens had high levels of PFAS, and that the authorities had refused her a blood test.
3.56Mr John Dee from Stop PFAS stated that his community in the Blue Mountains was suffering from the health effects of PFAS contamination as a result of the crash of a petrol tanker that caught fire and spilled its load of fuel at Medlow Bath in 1992. The subsequent containment of the fire entailed the use of large amounts of firefighting foam that flowed into a creek and then into drinking water dams.
3.57Mr Dee emphasised that NSW Health is refusing to do any blood tests in the community. This is despite testing of running water near the crash site done in October 2024 by Dr Ian Wright, Associate Professor in the School of Science at Western Sydney University, showing PFOS levels at 2200 nanograms a litre and PFHxS levels at 980 nanograms a litre, 32 years after the crash, causing concerns in the community that it has been consuming highly contaminated water for several decades.
3.58Mr Dee told the committee that he has dangerously high levels of cholesterol and has to take medication:
But what concerns me is just how many people are coming up to me to say they've got a cholesterol level above seven. They're all taking medication.
Mental health impacts of living with high levels of PFAS exposure
3.59Chapter 6 considers the cultural impacts that PFAS contamination has had on the Wreck Bay Aboriginal community. This section presents evidence the committee received from submitters and witnesses that the uncertainty and fear around the unknown effects of PFAS contamination and exposure causes considerable psychological distress.
3.60As noted earlier, the ANU PFAS Health Study found major psychological distress in the three PFAS affected communities that their study looked at. Professor Kirk explained to the committee that the study attributed the major sources of this distress to an overall disruption to life, including declining property values, an inability to eat homegrown produce, and 'worries about their children's and their own health'. Professor Kirk and colleagues also acknowledged that 'people who live in PFAS-impacted areas want conclusive answers—to know the health effects caused by PFAS exposure'. However, the ANU study was not designed or able to provide that certainty.[52]
3.61Dr Ian Wright stated that he had 'never seen such a panicked group of people' as the community in the Blue Mountains:
There was a thirst for information from not only the general community but even technically literate people in different parts of the industry. This is a really difficult topic. We're dealing with tiny concentrations of very harmful chemicals. We don't know where they are. We don't know the hotspots. We don't necessarily know the impact, and we might not know for decades.
3.62Mr Dee, Mr McLaren, and Ms Pickford recounted similar stories about the psychological distress caused by not knowing the extent of PFAS contamination and the health effects, including the possibility of cancer and cancer clusters. This distress is caused by several factors including the refusal of the Commonwealth Defence Force and various state health departments and ministers to engage meaningfully with the community with respect to testing land, waterways, livestock, and the people themselves. Added to this are the loss of livelihoods for farmers, the inability to eat home-grown produce, and the unknown health effects on them, their families, and their communities.
3.63For example, Mr McLaren told the committee of his devastation at discovering that he had been inadvertently selling PFAS contaminated beef to his customers:
It was shocking to us that nobody had informed us of the contamination. We had been farming that land for three years. We were directly across the road, and the stormwater from the base flows directly into the waterways on the farm. This is the water that the cattle drank. Can you imagine having a farmers market business selling directly to customers who over a period of years had become friends and finding out that the product that you had been selling them was possibly contaminated? I was gutted.
3.64Consequently, Mr McLaren recommended that government departments and agencies treat communities affected by PFAS with respect by taking their fears and concerns seriously and providing information on PFAS contamination in a more accessible way. He also recommended ending food production on highly contaminated properties, and compensating farmers for their losses.
3.65The committee received submissions from a workforce highly affected by PFAS contamination as part of their daily work, namely professional firefighters. The United Firefighters Union of Australia pointed to both the physical and psychological scars of work that entails repeated exposure to dangerous chemicals:
Professional firefighters go to work every day with the risk that they will be exposed to a cocktail of harmful chemicals; exposures that are shown to significantly impact their health and wellbeing. The impacts vary based on the type and extent of the exposure, but overall, the physical and psychological injuries that result are felt by thousands of firefighters in Australia.
3.66Similarly, the Aviation Branch of the United Firefighters Union of Australia, emphasised the absence of health monitoring by the government which compounds the uncertainty and stress endured by both serving and retired firefighters:
Aviation firefighters who have experienced serious PFAS exposure are largely left to their own devices to monitor effects on their own health. While there is academic research taking place into PFAS exposure and levels among aviation firefighters, there is no ongoing health monitoring and management program in place to support them. Additionally, they have to live with the anxiety of wondering what their exposure to PFAS chemicals is doing to their bodies and the effect it will have on their quality and duration of life. This anxiety is a real day-to-day concern for retired and serving UFUA members.
Immediate programs and further studies
3.67Some inquiry participants have outlined programs that could be established to monitor and potentially reduce PFAS levels in the blood. Inquiry participants also advocated for more investment in monitoring and research that could provide data and evidence of the health effects of PFAS exposure.
3.68Dr Nicholas Chartres, Senior Research Fellow, School of Pharmacy, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, recommended the committee look at a 2022 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in the US:
They released a report in 2022 on clinical guidance for PFAS exposure, basically offering guidance for clinicians in PFAS affected communities on whether they should recommend testing, what markers are biologically relevant and what type of action their patients can take based on the information they get from that blood testing.
3.69The Queensland Alliance of Environmental Health Sciences recommended easier access to programs that have a demonstrated ability to reduce PFAS concentrations in the human body such as blood and plasma donation:
Regarding the mitigation of PFAS in our body, research shows that there is a faster reduction in PFAS levels in those who donate blood or plasma. We propose that this information should be available to people so they can consider the option of donation if they have high levels of PFAS. Ideally, when a person is identified as having a high PFAS level (i.e., >95% of general Australian community) at some point in time, there should be a trigger for access to a Medicare rebate for venesection. This will enable people with higher levels and therefore the potential for a greater health risk to readily access a procedure that will reduce PFAS levels. This procedure can be repeated over time to continue to decrease PFAS body burden.
3.70Dr Cameron Shearer noted that the studies which may provide robust evidence regarding the causal links between PFAS exposure and health effects take many years to conduct and are not typically funded by current grant funding pathways. He recommended that longitudinal studies greater than five years should be supported.
3.71The Queensland Alliance of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of Queensland recommended more research into the health effects of PFAS, including:
which PFAS are currently in the environment, the levels, and the exposure pathways; and
longitudinal cohort studies to enable effective research into the health issues related to PFAS exposure.
3.72The Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences emphasised:
Longitudinal studies tracking PFAS exposure from pregnancy through early childhood are essential to understanding the potential risks to brain development and future health. Additionally, larger-scale research is needed to explore potential links between PFAS exposure and chronic conditions.
3.73In order to address the shortcomings in the understanding of the adverse human health effects of PFAS, the Australian Academy of Health and Medical Sciences recommended several large-scale studies and programs, including:
the immediate establishment of an interim program to monitor the levels of PFAS and other chemical contaminants in priority populations such as pregnant women; and
a national human biomonitoring program to track Australians' bioaccumulation of PFAS together with other chemical contaminants (similar to existing programs in the United States, South Korea, Japan, and several European countries).