Pfas detected in US beers in new study, raising safety concerns
www.theguardian.com
Researchers point to contaminated water after ‘forever chemicals’ found in all but one of 23 sampled beers

Researchers point to contaminated water after ‘forever chemicals’ found in all but one of 23 sampled beers

All but one of 23 beers sampled for toxic Pfas “forever chemicals” contained the compounds, new research finds, raising safety questions about one of the world’s most popular beverages.

The researchers checked craft beer from multiple states, major domestic brands, and several international labels.

When possible, they compared the measurements to Pfas levels in the county water supply where each was bottled, revealing a “strong correlation” that suggests contaminated water is driving most of the problem. The levels were often above some drinking water limits for Pfas.

  • who@feddit.orgEnglish
    18·
    3 days ago

    https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.4c11265#_i24

    4.4. PFAS in Beer and Drinking Water Occurrence

    Beers selected based on their brewery location’s proximity to known elevated levels of PFAS in drinking water had 15 times the odds of having one or more detection of PFAS compared to larger-scale U.S. or international beers selected based on consumer popularity without known PFAS sources in municipal water. The PFSAs and PFOA had the highest detection rates and were also among the most frequently detected chemicals in drinking water across the United States in recent studies. (26,28,55,67) The substitution of long-chain PFSAs with short-chain PFSAs (PFBS) has also been observed with high detection rates in recent drinking water studies as well as beers we analyzed. (26,28,55,61)

    North Carolina beers, particularly those within the Cape Fear River Basin, generally had detections of more PFAS species than Michigan or California beers, which reflects the variety of PFAS sources in NC. (68) The two beers with the largest number of different PFAS detected were both located in the upper regions of the Cape Fear River Basin in Chatham and Alamance counties, where larger variability in the types of PFAS as well as higher concentrations of PFAS have been observed in surface waters in the Haw River. (14,68) HFPO–DA was detected in both beer and raw water from a drinking water treatment plant (DWTP) in the lower region of the Cape Fear River Basin. (14) The DWTP at which HFPO–DA was detected pulls in water from the Cape Fear River downstream from a fluorochemical manufacturing plant that produces the chemical. (14,69)

    Similarities between PFAS in drinking water and beer were also observed in Michigan, where Kalamazoo County had the highest reported average PFOA concentration from the state-reported drinking water of all counties in the three states. The beer brewed in this county also had the highest measured PFOA concentration of all of the beers in the study. The correlations between ∑PFAS, PFOA, and PFBS levels in beers were linked to local drinking water contamination.

    Approximately 18% of breweries operating in the United States are located within zip codes served by public water supplies with detectable PFAS in drinking water as reported by UCMR5 (as of July 2024; Figures 6 and S2). We found that international beers were less likely to have detectable PFAS or PFAS at higher levels, which may reflect the lack of or lower levels of PFAS in drinking water in these regions. The first study of PFAS in tap water in Latin America found that PFAS were not generally associated with any drinking water source in Guatemala City, the region’s largest city, which lacked PFAS manufacturing industries; rather, PFAS occurrence in tap water was instead associated with plastic water storage tank usage. (70)

    Figure 6. U.S. Map showing total PFAS (ppt; color scale) in zip codes served by public drinking water supplies reported by UCMR5 (July 2024) and locations of currently operating breweries (light blue circles). See Figure S2 for additional maps zoomed into several regions.