‘Forever chemicals’ found in San Francisco Bay fish

Studies have shown elevated PFAS levels in freshwater fish, and even though saltwater fish tend to see lower amounts, Rebecca Sutton, managing senior scientist at the San Francisco Estuary Institute, said studying fish in bodies of water like the San Francisco Bay is still critical.

“For the whole state of California there has actually been very little data on PFAS in fish that we catch and consume every day,” Sutton said.

Researchers detected 20 types of PFAS in the samples, including a chemical never before documented in marine fish. Commonly-caught fish, such as white croaker and striped bass, contained particularly elevated levels, and the results were even more concerning in the southernmost testing sites, which included a Redwood Creek location.

“The Bay Area has a large population, and where you have people, you have PFAS. There are large inputs, and there are lower flushing levels further south,” said Tasha Stoiber, senior scientist at Environmental Working Group. “The more urbanized the area, there are probably higher levels of PFAS.”

Some of the fish, such as striped bass, are already listed on advisories as fish that should not be eaten or their consumption should be limited.

But the findings are still concerning, as there are many communities that eat fish from the Bay, Sutton said, especially those who incorporate seafood as a large part of the diet.

“There has been a lot of guidance to protect local communities, especially against [polychlorinated biphenyls] and mercury, and we’re hoping that same guidance will also cover PFAS as well,” she said.

The levels were compared against Massachusetts’ guidelines, in part because it has some of the strictest in the country and also because Calfornia doesn’t have health guidelines for PFAS in fish, according to the study. But that doesn’t mean it hasn’t started cracking down on the presence of the forever chemicals. The state has made progress on a number of bills over the last several years, banning or more highly regulating the chemicals in products ranging from cosmetics to children’s products and flame retardants. California Senate Bill 682, currently in the Appropriations Committee, would more broadly expand the restrictions, forcing manufacturers to provide evidence that certain PFAS chemicals are unavoidable or critical for the basic function of their product. It would also ban the use of PFAS across seven additional product categories.

But unlike manufactured products, reducing levels in food is more complicated, as their presence is often a reflection of the amount of PFAS in other nearby sources.

“The issue with PFAS exposure and reducing risk is that we are being exposed from many different sources,” said Anna Reade, director of PFAS advocacy at Natural Resources Defense Council. “When it comes to our food, there is no direct way to clean up our food systems. We just have to reduce our use in general.”

Sutton said she hopes the institute’s data will help inform communities, both regionally and potentially nationwide.

“The state of California is leading the charge on banning PFAS in a number of specific consumer product categories,” she said. “When we ban PFAS … it has a ripple effect across the country.”

alyse@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 102