New study of San Francisco Bay fish confirms concentrations of PFAS aka ‘forever chemicals’

By Spencer Christian and Tim Didion

Click here for updates on this story

    SAN FRANCISCO, California (KGO) — A new study is confirming concentrations of “forever chemicals” in fish caught in San Francisco Bay.

The data comes just days after the Trump EPA signaled that it will delay regulations aimed at phasing out many of those chemicals.

But as we now hear, staying Climate Ready can often mean staying aware of the impact we make with our choices.

Stroll onto a pier in nearly any corner of San Francisco Bay, and you’ll probably find someone with a fishing line in the water. For many, the fish they catch is an economic lifeline and a big part of their daily diet.

“Absolutely. And especially, for a lot of us, it’s cultural. It’s, you know, our heart. Our heritage is what we do,” said LaDonna Williams of the Richmond-based nonprofit All Positives Possible.

The group works to identify potential toxins present in fish caught in the bay. Not just mercury or other well documented pollutants, but a class known as PFAS — sometimes called “forever chemicals.”

“So, if we’re really not aware of it and there’s no regulations or regulatory priorities put on it, that definitely harms us and especially the most vulnerable, disadvantaged communities,” Williams said.

But now, answers are finally beginning to surface. In a newly released study, researchers from the San Francisco Estuary Institute examined 10 different species of fish caught from more than a dozen locations around the Bay over the course of a decade. The study confirmed roughly 20 different variations of PFAS, which can come from plastics and other manufactured materials. Dr. Rebecca Sutton, Ph.D., is a senior scientist with the Estuary Institute and co-author on the study.

“A major concern with PFAS is that these are extremely persistent in the environment. They do not degrade, and that’s why we call them forever chemicals,” Sutton said.

Using one of the few existing PFAS standards from Massachusetts — the study found fewer than one in five of the fish sampled would be rated as safe to eat once a day. Samples from the South Bay tended to be significantly higher in PFAS than the northern parts of the Bay Area. While the results are new, researchers believe that following existing standards based on other chemicals, such as Mercury, would still offer a rough guideline for safe fish consumption. And, they’re hoping the new data will help regulators in California provide even more refined advice for groups fishing in the bay.

“Many states already have important standards for, say, fish consumption. And so, California can develop those guidance for our own populations, and we can all eat more safely. Fish is a very healthy source of protein, and we’d all like to be eating fish from the bay. We just want to do it safely,” Sutton said.

Williams also believes the information will be critical moving forward.

“Being able to reduce harm, as they say, before it starts, that comes from understanding what it is, so that you could change your habits or you could change decisions. If you don’t know about it, you can’t change it. Right?” she said.

The group All Positives Possible is currently helping with a study of fish caught in areas around the Carquinez Strait, with an eye on confirming local concentrations of PFAS in fish caught in the immediate area.

Please note: This content carries a strict local market embargo. If you share the same market as the contributor of this article, you may not use it on any platform.