Summary
A BMJ editorial says preventing exposure should remain central to protecting health from PFAS. It summarizes evidence associating certain PFAS with several health outcomes, including kidney and testicular cancer.
A BMJ editorial published on 2 November 2026 argues that preventing exposure should remain a central strategy for protecting health from perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS. The authors summarize reviews of epidemiological and animal evidence that associate certain PFAS with several health outcomes, while emphasizing that the findings are associations rather than proof of cause.
Why PFAS persist
PFAS are a large group of manufactured chemicals used for more than 70 years in products and applications including waterproofing, firefighting, non-stick cookware and lubrication. Their thermal and chemical stability helps explain why they persist in the environment. The term “forever chemicals” also reflects the long biological half-lives of some widely studied PFAS: for compounds such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), these can typically be measured in years.
The editorial describes widespread environmental contamination, local hotspots and detectable PFAS concentrations in the blood of populations around the world. It also notes high PFOA concentrations found in 49 people living near a chemical factory in Lancashire, England, that used the substance.
Environmental persistence and a long biological half-life are related but distinct: one concerns how long a chemical remains in the environment, the other how slowly the body eliminates it.
What the health evidence indicates
The authors cite reviews finding associations between certain PFAS and dyslipidaemia—abnormal blood lipid levels—altered antibody responses, fetal growth and cancer, particularly renal and testicular cancer. They describe evidence for some other conditions as suggestive but less consistent.
These findings come from epidemiological research and animal evidence summarized in reviews; the editorial is not a new clinical study. An association alone cannot establish that PFAS exposure caused a particular outcome. The authors’ public-health conclusion is that reducing exposure is important because these chemicals can persist in the environment and, for some PFAS, in the human body.