Here’s the bad news: Forever chemicals are everywhere. For decades, these compounds, known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have been used in goods to help those products resist water and grease. Because of their super-strong carbon and fluorine bonds, they’re excellent at repelling water and oils, which makes them ideal for applications where you want to keep things slick and dry; think nonstick cookware, stain-repellent furniture, longwear mascara, and waterproof apparel.
Thousands of PFAS compounds are used in industry and consumer goods. Their prevalence means that PFAS are now routinely found in drinking water, soil, plants, food, people’s bodies, and even animals in remote regions of the world. Exposure to certain PFAS has been linked to a host of health concerns, including cancer and fertility issues.
Here’s the good news: In many new products, PFAS chemicals have been phased out or replaced. And experts say that even if consumer products do contain PFAS, the health risk from using any one such product is likely to be relatively low.
Everyone is exposed to background levels of PFAS from their immediate environment. Drinking water, “diet (especially food packaging), indoor dust, and consumer products all contribute” to PFAS levels in individuals, said Vasilis Vasiliou, a professor of epidemiology and chair of Yale’s Department of Environmental Health Sciences, in an email interview.
While no one can avoid PFAS entirely, you can take specific actions to reduce your exposure and risk to your long-term health. Because people are exposed to PFAS in many ways, even if an individual exposure pathway is low, “it still contributes to a person’s overall PFAS exposure and adds to the risk of health impacts,” said Jamie DeWitt, a toxicologist at Oregon State University’s Department of Environmental and Molecular Toxicology. For this reason, it makes sense to try to reduce PFAS exposures where you can, while keeping perspective.
And the steps don’t have to be drastic. Joseph Braun, an epidemiologist and director of Brown University’s Center for Climate, Environment & Health, said that his primary advice to people who want to reduce their PFAS exposure is to use a water filter, “eat a balanced diet with minimally processed and packaged foods,” and clean your home with a HEPA vacuum.
Here are some straightforward actions you can take to reduce your overall risk.
First, consider a water filter
Depending on where you live, tap water may expose you to PFAS chemicals. At this writing, the EPA is poised to require municipal water systems to remove certain PFAS (including PFOA and PFOS) over the next few years, but this rule is currently in a state of flux.
So for now, find out if your municipal water supply contains PFAS. You have a couple of ways to do this, including calling your water utility for a Consumer Confidence Report, or CCR. (We discuss that topic in more detail in this article.) If it does contain PFAS, if you’re still not sure after reading the report, or if you want to take extra precautions, we recommend getting a water filter.
Look for a filter that’s NSF-certified to filter out high levels of two types of PFAS (PFOA and PFOS) from entering your body via the tap. We have recommendations, including the Brita Elite Filter, a pitcher style; the Pur Plus Faucet Filtration System, a faucet-mounted option; the Aquasana AQ-5300+ Max Flow, an undersink system; and Cloud RO, our top-pick reverse-osmosis filter.
Vacuum regularly
Vasiliou noted that people can be exposed to PFAS via household dust, which can become airborne and then inhaled. And settled dust on floors, carpeting, and other surfaces may be of particular concern for infants and young children.
Braun recommended regular vacuuming as a way to reduce exposure to PFAS. Vacuuming regularly with a quality vacuum can help reduce dust, as can damp dusting and mopping. Dust management is also an approach that experts suggest for reducing your exposure to microplastics and improving indoor air quality overall.
Reduce your reliance on packaged food
PFAS exposure from food itself — through agriculture or processing — is a continuing area of study. But food can be a significant source of PFAS exposure for some people.
It’s difficult to make generalizations about what does and does not have a high likelihood of PFAS contamination, and rather than suggesting that people avoid any particular food group or type of food, the FDA recommends eating a varied, balanced diet.
Both Vasiliou and Braun, however, noted packaged foods as one potential source of PFAS exposure in people’s diets. Historically, grease-proof paper packaging in the US marketplace was a source of PFAS in food, but no longer. However, other disposable packaging, including compostable types, may be a source, so when possible, avoid unnecessary disposables unless it bears the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) logo.
Phase out your PTFE cookware
Even new PTFE-coated cookware can release PFAS into food, but cookware is a “relatively modest contributor in the overall exposure picture,” said Vasiliou.
Still, switching your cookware is a relatively low-cost, “reasonable” step to take, Vasiliou said, “especially for households with infants, pregnant women, or individuals with elevated PFAS body burden.”
Wirecutter has a guide to tested and approved swaps that don’t rely on PFAS to work, vetted by our kitchen editor. (We’re not big fans of ceramic nonstick, unfortunately.)
If you do cook with a PTFE-based nonstick pan, never use it to sear or in the oven above 450 degrees Fahrenheit, and toss it once it’s scratched or flaking. Regardless, dispose of it if it’s older than 2014, since Teflon phased out PFOA in 2013.
Look at your other purchases, but don’t panic
Until just a couple of years ago, many consumer goods, including outdoor apparel, upholstery, carpeting, and cosmetics, relied on PFAS for water, oil, and stain resistance. The chemicals haven’t completely disappeared from those goods. But while the federal regulatory landscape is in flux, a range of products are relying less and less on them in response to a combination of state and international regulation, consumer demand, and material advances.
Apparel, furnishings, and cosmetics may still contain PFAS that have been intentionally added or have entered supply chains in trace amounts through contamination. In Wirecutter’s guides, we make an effort to highlight when products rely on PFAS for performance, as well as when they have robust PFAS testing or certifications, so that you can make an informed choice. We also note when products have third-party certifications that set limits against the use of intentionally added PFAS, such as Oeko-Tex Standard 100 and Bluesign.
Experts say that consumer goods such as cookware and rain gear are relatively low sources of PFAS exposure to individuals.
And there’s an environmental reason to use the things you have for a longer amount of time. If you own items that you know or suspect to be reliant on these compounds for waterproofing, stainproofing, or long-lasting performance, consider using them until they wear out, and then replacing them with PFAS-free alternatives.
While scientists are still studying the degree to which human skin may absorb PFAS chemicals, the sources we’ve interviewed say that the risk from cosmetics and personal-care items is likely to be relatively low. If you’re concerned, look for products whose makers state that they’re free of added PFAS and conduct regular PFAS testing. These claims are not guarantees that the product will contain no PFAS, but they can provide some reassurance.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the body of research on how PFAS has an impact on human health continues to grow. Generally, the most severe clusters of PFAS-related health ailments have been around factories and other institutions that produce or use the chemicals at high concentrations — not from the use of individual products. Certain occupations are also at higher risk.
The more common exposures to PFAS happen at much lower levels through water, food, and products. The long-term risks of this kind of day-to-day, cumulative, lower-level exposure are less understood, and it’s an area of evolving research.
Scientists have linked certain PFAS exposures to a range of negative outcomes, including higher cholesterol, ulcerative colitis, impaired thyroid function, reduced immune response in children, pregnancy-related hypertension and preeclampsia, lower birth weights, liver disruption, and certain cancers.
The push to phase out PFAS from products is being driven by significant environmental and public-health concerns. PFAS are easily carried by water, and they’ve been found in oceans, lakes, streams, reservoirs, municipal drinking water, and precipitation on every continent. Scientists have found PFAS in the bodies of hundreds of animal species, as well as in plants, which means the chemicals can make their way back up the food chain, accumulating and potentially magnifying in the human body.
The most extensively studied PFAS — PFOS and PFOA — have been designated hazardous materials by the EPA, as they have some of the longest histories and most established risk. Though PFOS and PFOA have been largely phased out in the US, they will linger in the environment for a long time.
Newer PFAS, which have shorter molecules (“short-chain” rather than legacy “long-chain” PFAS), appear to leave the human body much more quickly than PFOS and PFOA — often in a matter of months after exposure, as opposed to years or decades — but many of them are still associated with similar health impacts.
Since everyone is exposed to PFAS at low levels, experts say it is wise to try to limit PFAS exposure strategically, where you can. With some of these common-sense measures, you can reduce your personal risk, while systemic action is necessary to address broader public-health concerns.
Bron: nyt / 27 juli 2026