PFAS contaminates fish worldwide while public focus stays on drinking water

Written By Pat Elder

Compelling reports linking PFAS to cancer and disease are ignored.

By Pat Elder
June 16, 2025

PFOS content detected  in fish from the Hija River Basin near U.S. Kadena Air Base, Japan in 2016.  A Japanese boy holds a Tilapia he caught.

The graphic depicts Swordtail, Pearl Danio, Guppy, and Tilapia. Ng/g is parts per billion, meaning that Tilapia fillet contained up to 100 ppb or 100,000 parts per trillion of PFOS. The Japanese government regulates PFOS in drinking water at 50 ppt. but does not regulate the substance in fish.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are poisoning fish around the world, yet public attention remains fixated on their presence in drinking water. In the U.S. and other developed nations, most municipal water systems now deliver water with relatively little or no detectable PFAS, thanks to increasing awareness, regulation, and treatment technologies. However, this focus on water obscures the far greater threat: food - especially fish - the primary pathway for human exposure to these toxic "forever chemicals."

Fish caught in contaminated rivers, lakes, and coastal waters often contain dangerously high concentrations of PFAS, yet this issue receives little public scrutiny. Despite mounting evidence, governments worldwide have adopted weak and inconsistent regulations that fail to protect public health. The global food chain is being tainted with these carcinogens.

Diet is the primary exposure pathway for PFAS. This conclusion is supported by multiple studies, including findings by the European Food Safety Authority, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and multiple national regulatory agencies worldwide.

Of all foods - fish and seafood from contaminated waters have the greatest concentrations of PFAS. This makes sense because the world’s rivers are poisoned with these chemicals, as we have painstakingly documented.  

We must never forget that the U.S. EPA figures that PFOS, one  type of PFAS, may bioaccumulate in fish tissue up to 4,000 times the levels found in the water. This factoid has historic, worldwide public health implications.

Mainstream news items on PFAS from the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Australia mention drinking water much more frequently than food sources as a pathway to ingestion. In the world public’s mind, among the few who have actually heard of the carcinogens, PFAS is a chemical that contaminates drinking water.

Last year, the U.S. EPA estimated that 8.5% of the 6,903 public water systems tested had levels of PFOS or PFOA exceeding the 4 parts per trillion maximum contaminant level. The EPA’s  Fifth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
(UCMR-5) requires reporting of detections at 4 ppt or higher for these chemicals.

Table 4. April 2025 Comparison of UCMR 5 Averages and the MCLs from the April 2024 National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) - EPA

6,903 public water systems have responded based on the data summarized in Table 4 shown here. This dataset represents approximately 75% of the total results expected by the end of the monitoring period in 2026.

The average level of PFOS was 10 ppt, the maximum was 95 ppt. The average level of PFOA was 9.5 ppt, the maximum was 235 ppt. -ACSH.org

To recap: 92.5% of the water systems tested across the country had PFOS or PFOA under 4 parts per trillion. However, people with private wells near military and industrial sites may be seriously endangered.

The lesson of Joint Base Andrews in Clinton, MD

 I teamed up with Sherman Hardy, an activist who lived in Clinton, Maryland, very close to Joint Base Andrews. Sherman tested the water at his home for 55 PFAS compounds in 2022 and found a total of 1.2 ppt of PFOS.

The water is provided by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, (WSSC). WSSC  serves approximately 1.9 million residents in Montgomery and Prince George's counties in Maryland. We have tested the water at several locations in both counties, and we have not found levels above regulatory limits. Somebody is doing something right at WSSC.

The dangerously polluted, muddy waters of Piscataway Creek drain from the perpetually contaminated Joint Base Andrews, where we tested the water for PFAS. The results are shown below.

The Piscataway Creek water we tested had a total of 2,666 ppt of total PFAS with 803.2 ppt of PFOS.

When we think of PFAS we should be thinking about the contamination of food, especially fish, caused by the poisoned surface waters and soil. The municipal drinking water in Clinton, Maryland, brought in from somewhere else, is not impacted by the deadly contamination from the Air Force.

A redbreast sunfish caught from Piscataway Creek not far from the location of the photo above had a total concentration of 430,960 ppt of total PFAS, including 417,000 ppt of PFOS. People don’t eat these small fish but large fish like the Largemouth Bass do. The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) reported finding 94,200 ppt of PFOS in the fillet of a Largemouth Bass at the mouth of Piscataway Creek where it empties into the Potomac River. See MDE - PFAS Piscataway Creek. 

Pregnant woman with a Largemouth Bass.

Maryland allows residents to eat this highly contaminated fish from the Potomac River. The drinking water in Clinton, Maryland contains 1.2 ppt of PFOS while the popular Largemouth Bass contains 94,200 ppt of PFOS. Meanwhile, the media here is fixated on the drinking water.

We must understand the math. 

The EPA’s Reference Dose (RfD) is an estimate of the daily oral exposure to a chemical “that is likely to be without appreciable risk of harmful effects during a lifetime.” In 2016 the RfD for PFOS was set at .0079 ng/kg/day.  That is .0079 nanogram per kilogram of a person’s weight in a single day.  

Today, the EPA says that there is no level of exposure to these contaminants without risk of health impacts, including certain cancers.

 

The EPA’s Reference Dose (RfD) for PFOS

  • Reference Dose (RfD) for PFOS: 0.0079 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day (ng/kg/day)

  • Assumed body weight: 70 kg adult

  • Safe monthly intake: 0.0079 ng/kg/day - -  .0079 × 70 kg × 30 days = 16.59 nanograms/month from all sources

==============

Drinking Water

  • Drinking Water Standard (MCL): 4 nanograms per liter (ng/L)

  • 2 liters per day

  • Monthly exposure at MCL -- 4 ng/L × 2 L/day × 30 days = 240 nanograms/month

==============

The EPA’s drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL)  of 4 ng/L results in an exposure of 240 ng/month — exceeding the total monthly intake considered safe (16.59 ng/month) based on the RfD.  This directly contradicts the agency's own health-based guidance and exposes individuals to a level above what is deemed acceptable.

 

Fish Consumption

  •  Maryland says it’s OK to consume Largemouth Bass containing a concentration of 94.2 ng/g of PFOS in its fillet.

  • A single 8-ounce (227 g) serving = 21,383 nanograms of PFOS

  • The EPA’s RfD for PFOS is 16.59 nanograms/month from all sources

  • The single serving of fish is 1,289 times above this monthly limit.

Clinton, Maryland’s Water

  • PFOS detected at 1.2 ng/L in local drinking water

  • Monthly exposure = 1.2 ng/L × 2 L/day × 30 = 72 ng/month

  • Again, the EPA’s RfD for PFOS is 16.59 nanograms/month from all sources

  • Clinton’s water is  4.3 times over this limit.

================

 Now, let’s look at the concentrations of PFAS (in ppt) in 15 fish species from across the country.

An analysis of  PFAS concentrations in 3,262 fish and oysters from rivers and lakes in 48 states shows that America’s fish are toxic.

Note the wide difference between the “Mean” or average levels and the “Median” or “Middle” values. Military and industrial hotspots cause the numbers to spike in those areas. For instance, a Pumpkinseed fish caught just outside of the Wurtsmith Airbase  had nearly 10 million parts per trillion of PFOS in its fillet. Compare that to 1.2 ppt of PFOS in drinking water.

Other food items in the U.S. have shown dangerous levels, although, generally, not as dangerous as the fish.

·        14,700 PFOA in bread Cleveland, TN Sav-a-Lot (FDA Testing, 2019)

·        45,090 ppt of PFAS in chicken eggs in Maine (see attachment)

·        43,500 ppt in deer meat in Fairfield, Maine

·        5,000 ppt of PFAS in milk in New Mexico

·        2,480 ppt of PFOS in beef in Michigan

·        17,640 ppt of  PFPeA in chocolate cake

=======================

PFAS regulations in selected countries

Like the United States, the world is largely focused on PFAS in drinking water. Everyone on the planet drinks water daily, so the idea of “toxic chemicals in tap water” is immediate, alarming, and easy to grasp.

In contrast, not everyone eats locally caught fish, especially freshwater fish, which are often most contaminated. But millions do, especially poor people. It’s free food and public health agencies say eating fish is good for your health.

The industrialized western world is slowly beginning to regulate the levels of PFAS that may be ingested in food and water over a lifetime without too much risk. The thing is that these chemicals are toxic at the tiniest levels so setting standards that allow the consumption at any level fails to protect public health.

Current regulatory limits in the U.S., E.U., Japan, and Australia/NZ vary widely and are mostly confined to just two of the 15,000 various PFAS compounds, known as PFOS and PFOA.  Of course, establishing regulatory limits is one thing while enforcing these limits is another. No U.S. state has established enforceable regulations on PFAS levels in fish tissue. Instead, at least 16 states have issued fish consumption advisories for specific species of fish in particular bodies of water. These advisories are rarely accompanied by robust public outreach and signage.

To its credit, the European Union has established legally binding limits for PFOS in fish tissue at 2 µg/kg for most fish. That’s the same as 2,000 parts per trillion. However, actual enforcement is sporadic at best, with limited testing and inconsistent monitoring across member states, raising questions about the effectiveness of these protections in practice.

Japan has not established legal limits or consumption advisories for PFOS in fish tissue.

Australia and New Zealand have not established any national, legally binding limits or formal consumption advisories for PFOS in fish tissue. However, state and territory authorities have issued fish advisories in a few areas.

Let’s take a look at daily intake equivalents, keeping in mind the lesson of the Largemouth Bass in Maryland.  

* EU members are Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Republic of Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden.

Non - EU members: U.K., Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and Albania align with EU standards.    Turkey, Ukraine, Serbia, Georgia, Moldova, Canada, China, Russia, India, Mexico have not established limits.

While PFOS is most commonly found in fish due to its strong tendency to accumulate in aquatic tissue, PFOA is more frequently detected in crustaceans, and a variety of land-based food products such as eggs, dairy, and vegetables.

Many heard the warning about PFOA from Linda Birnbaum, Director of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, back in 2019. She explained to Sharon Lerner of The Intercept, “If you look at the data, pancreatic tumors are present at very, very low concentrations from PFOA,” Birnbaum explained. “If you use the pancreatic tumors in the rats in the NTP study to calculate what would really be a virtually safe dose, you’re getting down at about .1 ppt. Well, that’s really low. And that’s only for one PFAS.” Birnbaum suggested that regulators might ultimately issue one drinking water standard for the entire class, which contains thousands of compounds.

Japan & Aus/NZ on the drinking water

Japan has set a non-binding “provisional target value” of 50 ppt for the combined total of PFOS and PFOA in drinking water. The country plans to make this limit legally enforceable in 2026 -- even though officials know this level fails to protect human health. They cannot defend the outdated science they are citing.

Australia and New Zealand’s approach to regulating PFAS in drinking water is an  embarrassment on the global stage. Their guidelines set voluntary thresholds for municipal water providers of 70  ppt. for the total of PFOS and PFHxS.  Incredibly, they have set a standard of 560 ppt for PFOA. Compare this to the U.S. limits for PFOS and PFOA at 4 ppt, levels that most scientists not working for chemical manufacturers say do not protect our health.

Consider Dr. Birnbaum’s ominous warning!

Despite overwhelming scientific evidence linking PFOS, PFOA and a host of PFAS compounds to cancer, immune dysfunction, and developmental harm, the regulatory response in these countries and worldwide remains timid, relying on outdated standards and voluntary guidelines that fail to protect public health. Perhaps nowhere outside of Japan is the bond between polluter and government so close. Perhaps nowhere is a “western” government more willing to sacrifice public health for political expediency. The public down under is largely clueless in this regard.

PFOA is arguably the deadliest of all PFAS compounds. It has been closely linked to pancreatic cancer, chronic kidney disease, and reduced fertility rates.

Japan – Pancreatic Cancer, Chronic Kidney Disease, and Fertility Rates.

The Kobe Shimbun reported in 2023 that PFOA reached levels of 100,000 ppt. in the Akashi River in Hyōgo Prefecture in Japan. This is among the highest concentrations anywhere on earth, although the Xiaoqing River estuary in Shandong, China is off the world charts with 1,710,000 ppt of PFOA.

PFOA contaminates miles of riverbanks and sediment in heavily populated areas. The carcinogens bind to soils. When the water levels drop, the sun and wind conspire to lift the toxins into the air, entering our lungs and homes as dust.

Pancreatic Cancer

It’s not surprising that the incidence, prevalence, and mortality of pancreatic cancer in Japan is the highest in Asia. (The levels in Australia and New Zealand are also alarmingly high.) 

Chronic kidney disease

The aging population means CKD prevalence increases sharply in people over 65, which is a large demographic in Japan.

13% of the Japanese public suffers with chronic kidney disease.  The country has a disproportionately large number of individuals undergoing dialysis for end-stage renal disease due to its aging population. It makes sense because the PFOA bioaccumulates over a lifetime.  

Australia also reports high CKD rates, with an estimated 11% of adults affected. Chronic kidney disease rates among Aboriginals are seven times higher than the non-Indigenous population. This also makes sense considering the nature of environmental pollution. Indigenous people engage in traditional fishing, hunting, and gathering practices. New Zealand shows a similar trend, with CKD prevalence estimated between 10–12%, and Māori and Pasifika communities bearing a disproportionate burden.

Fertility Rates

Exposure to PFAS may reduce fertility in women by as much as 40%, researchers from the Environmental Health Sciences Core Center at Mount Sinai found. 

Recent headlines from Japan have been lamenting the country’s rock-bottom fertility rates. Fertility rates in Australia aren’t much higher, although it’s tough to make a fair comparison due to the disparate demographics.

Causation is a tough thing to prove, so the best argument is to say that if these nations want to improve their score on pancreatic cancer, chronic kidney disease, and fertility rates, they may want to pay more attention to PFAS.

There’s plenty of speculation worldwide on what accounts for such a disparity in  public health policy and PFAS.  The Japanese and the Australian governments suffer  from a lack of intellectual honesty and maturity. They know the score.

Prior to the Trump accession, the U.S. drew on recent studies linking PFAS to immune suppression, developmental harm, and thyroid disruption at extremely low doses. Official Japan and Australia apparently prefer to rely on more antiquated data that fails to identify associated diseases and disorders. The U.S. has experienced great public pressure, political lobbying, and lawsuits while the Japanese response to PFAS have been comparatively muted. The Japanese government makes it seem like they’re being proactive, but little has changed. Opposition to PFAS contamination still focuses on surveys and studies rather than court battles. The government's regulatory approach remains sluggish and defensive. Australia is similar, although it has seen a flurry of class action lawsuits over the use of firefighting foams at Defence Force sites.

There’s little public alarm, relatively little public recognition of the problem.  National governments in Japan and Australia/NZ put political and financial concerns above matters of public health. So do all of the other nations on earth.

This is a great tragedy. The health of so many depends on governmental transparency and open dialogue concerning the threat posed by PFAS.

===========================================================================================

Under the Trump administration, the EPA has significantly reduced oversight of toxic contamination at DoD sites. In the past, the EPA made some effort to appear engaged in regulation. Today, even that façade has disappeared. People must organize themselves into collectives to research and test for military contamination in their communities. And then, they must take measures to protect themselves from the poisons. State governments allow the DOD to dictate environmental policy.

Please support our work. I’m working with two dozen veterans and activists to address the deadly contamination at Fort Ord, California -- a clear case of low-hanging toxic fruit.

We are raising money to pay for environmental testing this fall. We’ve compiled a database of 1,800 people who lived at Fort Ord and who have been sickened or have died as a result of their cancers and diseases.

We’ve raised $8,300 so far. The Army says the old base, where development is rampant, is completely safe, but we don’t trust them. We hope to test for volatile organic compounds, dioxin, depleted uranium, PFAS, and other contaminants in air, water, and soil. Please help us!  See the Fort Ord Contamination website.

Pat Elder
Next

Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) releases alarming report on the health of American children