Good thing the federal EPA is really taking PFAS seriously!
That was a joke, they're walking the regulations back of course.
this post was submitted on 30 May 2025
336 points (98.6% liked)
News
37731 readers
46 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Who on Earth is the one with none? That’s the real story here.
“…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”
PFAS are in the water cycle so I’m skeptical that any place is truly clear of them. The worst places are proximate to PFAS production sites, many of which are in the USA. Prolly not a good idea to open a brewery within 100 miles of any of those, but betting many are…
I'm so glad the U.S. is taking PFAS serious...oh wait.
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.
In water, fine.. IN BEEER!!?
It’s in every source of water on the planet, including people. It collects in brains and testes and other organs and we’ve been hearing about it for ages.
But somehow it’s surprising it’s in beer and oh we gotta write an article about it!
Quite literally, they've found caves untouched for millennia that have microplastics in them. They're inescapable at this point.
It's pedantic, but PFAs & microplastics are two very different things.
The article says it was found in American beer but not in international beer
It says it was found in international beers as well
Trump will fix this! He will cut funding to the research so it will not be detected anymore. There, problem solved.
For those who wish to know more about the origin and spread of PFAS
Links to the recent Veritasium video on PFAS aka forever chemicals. Describes the story of how PFAS were discovered, including interviews from the lawyer that got Du Pont to settle with the farmer, and how he continued to press the industry but they kept finding ways to weasel out of responsibility for contamination of waterways and global air. The host tests his own blood for various types of PFAS and uses online PFAS estimators to help understand that where he was living for ~10 years had higher levels in the water, which tracks to the higher levels seen in his blood. There's still PFAS in everyday consumer products - anything slippery or waterproof. They also interview someone researching PFAS filtration. Plenty more interesting bits in the video. Worth a watch.
Wouldn't it be more surprising if they found something that doesn't contain PFAS? At this point I'm assuming it's everywhere.
Right? If it's in drinking water, why wouldn't it also be in beer?
Drinking beer may cause eternal life. Got it. Good news for a Friday!
If you're worried about drinking pfas wait till you hear about what alcohol does...
load more comments
(15 replies)
So... it's more hazardous to drink water than beer? You son of a bitch... I'm in!
Just turn your drinking water into beer. Problem solved!
"The levels were often above some drinking water limits"
Yea… but dude… it’s beer
raising safety questions about one of the world’s most popular beverages
Wait, I thought this article was about American beer...
That was a better joke 30 years ago. 40 years ago, it was hilarious.
Fine. I'll grant there are some good craft beers. Too much emphasis on IPAs, but once you find some that meet your taste, we do have some good ones. Yeungling Black & Tans are pretty good, and I wouldn't even call them craft.
Yeungling started in 1829 when there was only 24 States. Supposedly the oldest brewery in the U.S.
Believe it or not, you don’t have to be American or live in America to drink American beer
I bought a Lifestraw to filter water which I also use for making tea and coffee. It filters out PFAS along with micro plastics and other shit we are poisoning ourselves with. Don't know if it would work with beer.
Something like this might be a solution for home use: https://cyclopure.com/dexsorb/
That or reverse osmosis
Oh wow so they found PFAS in piss?