Bill Eisenman has always had a love for fishing. As a child, his family relied on the fish they caught for their meals. Now, living in a suburb of Detroit with a river running through his property, Eisenman is concerned about the presence of PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) in the fish and the potential health risks they pose. PFAS, also known as “forever chemicals,” do not break down easily and can accumulate in the environment, including in fish and our bodies.
PFAS chemicals have been released into local ecosystems from manufacturing plants, landfills, and military bases, contaminating surface water, groundwater, and the wildlife in those areas. In fact, researchers, anglers, and environmental activists across the country are alarmed by the high levels of PFAS found in freshwater fish. At least 17 states have issued fish consumption advisories due to dangerous levels of PFAS, but without federal guidance, the regulations vary significantly among states.
A recent study by the Environmental Working Group revealed that consuming just one serving of freshwater fish can be equivalent to drinking water contaminated with high levels of PFAS for an entire month. This is concerning for communities, particularly rural, Indigenous, and low-income communities, that rely on fishing as a source of food. Fish is not only a cultural staple but also a valuable source of protein and omega-3s.
Researcher Dianne Kopec warns that consuming fish with high concentrations of PFAS can be more harmful than consuming mercury, a well-known neurotoxin. PFAS and mercury both bioaccumulate in fish, meaning larger fish tend to contain higher levels of these chemicals. While mercury contamination is more widespread in Maine, PFAS levels near contamination sources are alarmingly high.
Despite the health risks, fishing remains a way of life for many people. Bill Eisenman, for example, participated in a study that tested fish from Michigan’s rivers for PFAS contamination. The results were concerning, with no sites registering zero levels of the chemicals. Eisenman and others face a difficult decision about whether or not to continue consuming fish, given the potential risks.
The lack of comprehensive testing for PFAS contamination in lakes and streams is another concern. Experts worry that many more bodies of water may contain fish with high levels of PFAS, but these sites have not been thoroughly tested. While federal efforts have mainly focused on PFAS contamination in drinking water, the levels of PFAS in fish are much higher than what is typically found in drinking water.
Finding safe fish to consume can be challenging. Store-bought fish caught in the ocean, such as imported Atlantic salmon and canned chunk tuna, generally have lower levels of PFAS than freshwater fish. However, a biomonitoring project in the San Francisco Bay Area found higher levels of PFAS in blood samples from the Asian and Pacific Islander community, particularly in those who consumed locally caught fish.
State-level regulations and fish consumption advisories for PFAS also vary significantly. Some states, like New Hampshire, Washington, Maine, and New Jersey, have more protective guidance in place, while others, such as Maryland and Michigan, lag behind in designating unsafe fish for consumption.
Tackling PFAS contamination at its source is crucial for reducing the levels of these chemicals in fish. Efforts to clean up contaminated waterways have shown some progress, but complete eradication of PFAS is difficult. Without addressing the sources of pollution, the cycle of contamination and costly clean-up efforts will continue.
Overall, the presence of PFAS in freshwater fish is a serious concern for public health. Stricter regulations, comprehensive testing, and efforts to reduce PFAS contamination are needed to protect communities that rely on fishing as a way of life.