A Dangerous Chemical May Be In Your Tap Water — But The Trump Admin Doesn’t Want You To Know That – HuffPost

Report on Delayed Publication of PFNA Chemical Assessment and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

1.0 Executive Summary

This report addresses the delayed publication of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) assessment on perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), a persistent environmental pollutant. The withholding of this scientific data obstructs progress toward several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions). The delay coincides with administrative efforts to weaken regulations on such chemicals, raising concerns about public health, environmental justice, and the integrity of scientific governance.

2.0 Background: PFNA Contamination and Public Health Risks

Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) is a member of the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) group, commonly known as “forever chemicals” due to their persistence in the environment and human body. The unpublished EPA report provides evidence of significant health risks associated with PFNA exposure.

2.1 Threat to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The presence of PFNA in the drinking water of 28 states directly threatens public health, undermining the core objective of SDG 3 to ensure healthy lives for all. Documented health impacts from PFAS, including PFNA, include:

• Developmental and reproductive harms, such as reduced birth weight.
• Hepatic (liver) damage.
• Negative effects on male reproductive systems, including reduced testosterone and sperm production.
• Neurodevelopmental problems.
• Links to certain types of cancer.

2.2 Challenge to SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The widespread contamination of tap water directly contravenes the aims of SDG 6, which calls for universal access to safe and affordable drinking water.

1. Scale of Contamination: Data indicates that approximately 25 million people in the U.S. have PFNA levels in their water exceeding EPA guidelines. When considering all PFAS, up to 158 million people have measurable amounts in their water.
2. Source of Contamination: PFAS are found not only in drinking water but also in a wide range of consumer and industrial products, including nonstick cookware, food packaging, firefighting foam, and water-resistant fabrics, leading to persistent environmental pollution.

3.0 Governance, Regulation, and Institutional Integrity

The decision to withhold the finalized scientific report on PFNA appears to be part of a broader strategy of deregulation and suppression of scientific findings that conflict with political or industrial interests. This pattern directly challenges the principles of SDG 16, which advocates for effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

3.1 Undermining Scientific Institutions (SDG 16)

• Report Suppression: The EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program assessment on PFNA has been finalized since April but remains unpublished. This action prevents critical health data from informing public policy and regulatory standards.
• Deregulation Efforts: The administration has moved to weaken or revoke existing PFAS standards established under the previous administration, a move potentially influenced by lobbying from chemical manufacturers.
• Pattern of Behavior: This incident is consistent with previous instances where scientific reports on public health risks (e.g., from PFAS and alcohol consumption) were delayed or buried to avoid “public relations” challenges.

3.2 Environmental Injustice and SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

The burden of PFAS contamination is not distributed equally across the population, highlighting a critical environmental justice issue that conflicts with SDG 10.

• Disproportionate Impact: Research demonstrates that Black and Hispanic communities are more likely to be exposed to PFAS in their drinking water, exacerbating existing health and economic inequalities.
• Access to Solutions: Remedial actions, such as purchasing certified at-home water filtration systems, are often financially inaccessible to lower-income households, further widening the inequality gap in public health protection.

4.0 Recommendations and Pathways Forward

Addressing the challenge of PFAS contamination requires a multi-faceted approach involving government accountability, corporate responsibility, and public advocacy, aligned with the principles of the SDGs.

4.1 Citizen and Community Action

Public engagement is critical to pressure government bodies and corporations to act responsibly.

1. Advocacy: Contact elected officials at local, state, and federal levels to demand the release of the PFNA report and the implementation of strong, science-based drinking water standards.
2. Local Engagement: Inquire with local water utilities about PFAS levels and treatment plans.
3. State-Level Regulation: Support state-led initiatives to regulate PFAS in products and drinking water, which can serve as a model for federal action.

4.2 Promoting SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

Long-term solutions require a shift in industrial practices to eliminate the source of contamination.

• Corporate Transparency: Advocate for mandatory labeling of products containing PFAS to enable consumers to make informed choices.
• Phase-Out of Non-Essential Uses: Encourage regulations that eliminate the use of “forever chemicals” in non-essential applications such as makeup, clothing, and food packaging.
• Technological Solutions: While filtration technologies (e.g., reverse osmosis, certified carbon filters) exist, they are a temporary solution. The primary focus must be on preventing pollution at its source.

5.0 Conclusion

The deliberate delay in publishing the EPA’s scientific assessment of PFNA represents a significant failure of governance and a direct impediment to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. It compromises public health (SDG 3), jeopardizes access to clean water (SDG 6), deepens societal inequalities (SDG 10), and erodes trust in public institutions (SDG 16). Immediate release of the report and the establishment of robust, science-based regulations are essential steps toward protecting public health and ensuring a sustainable and equitable future.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article directly connects to this goal by detailing the adverse health effects of “forever chemicals” like PFNA found in drinking water. It explicitly mentions that these chemicals “directly harm our health, causing reproductive issues, neurodevelopment problems, and, in some cases, are linked to cancer.” The unpublished report further highlights harms like “reduced birth weight in babies,” “liver harms,” and damage to “male reproductive systems.”
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • This is a central theme of the article. The core issue is the contamination of tap water with PFNA, a harmful chemical, affecting “28 states.” The article quantifies the problem, stating that millions of Americans have contaminated drinking water, which directly challenges the goal of ensuring access to safe and clean water for all.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights a clear inequality in exposure to environmental hazards. It states, “While this is a widespread issue… Black communities and Hispanic communities are hardest hit. Research shows that these groups are more likely to be exposed to PFAS in drinking water.” This points to a systemic issue where minority communities bear a disproportionate burden of water pollution, linking directly to the goal of reducing inequalities.
4. SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production
   • This goal is relevant because the problem stems from man-made “forever chemicals” (PFAS) used in a wide range of consumer and industrial products, including “nonstick cookware, cleaning products, water-resistant jackets,” and “food packaging.” The article discusses the need to manage these chemicals properly and the pressure from “chemical manufacturers” to deregulate, which relates to achieving environmentally sound management of chemicals.
5. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article addresses this goal by focusing on the actions of a government institution, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Trump administration is accused of “delaying the publication of a report,” burying scientific research that doesn’t align with its political agenda, and attempting to “weaken these PFAS regulations.” This raises questions about institutional transparency, accountability, and the influence of corporate interests on public policy, which are core components of SDG 16.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being):
   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
     
     The article’s entire focus is on the health risks posed by PFNA contamination in drinking water. It details illnesses such as “reproductive issues, neurodevelopment problems,” liver damage, and links to cancer, which are the exact outcomes this target aims to reduce.
2. Under SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation):
   • Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all.
     
     The article demonstrates a failure to meet this target by stating that “Approximately 25 million people in the U.S. have PFNA in their water that exceeds EPA guidelines,” and up to “158 million people have a measurable amount of PFAS in their water.”
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials…
     
     The presence of man-made “forever chemicals” in the tap water of 28 states is a direct example of water quality degradation due to the release of hazardous chemicals, which this target aims to prevent.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of… race, ethnicity… or other status.
     
     The article points to a failure in achieving equitable environmental protection, a form of social inclusion. The finding that “Black communities and Hispanic communities are hardest hit” and “more likely to be exposed to PFAS in drinking water” shows a clear racial and ethnic disparity in who has access to safe resources.
4. Under SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production):
   • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil in order to minimize their adverse impacts on human health and the environment.
     
     The widespread contamination of drinking water with PFNA is a direct consequence of the failure to manage these chemicals properly. The article also mentions the influence of “chemical manufacturers” seeking deregulation, which runs counter to this target.
5. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     The article’s central claim that the Trump administration is “delaying the publication of a report” and “burying research that doesn’t align with its political plans” is a direct critique of the EPA’s lack of transparency and accountability.
   • Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
     
     The article implies that decision-making is not responsive to scientific evidence or public health needs but is instead influenced by a “wish list of deregulation” from “chemical manufacturers.” It suggests citizens must “call your elected representatives and your local water company” to pressure institutions into action, highlighting a current lack of responsive decision-making.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For Targets 3.9 and 6.1:
   • Quantitative Indicators: The article provides specific numbers that can serve as indicators of the population affected by unsafe drinking water.
     • “Approximately 25 million people in the U.S. have PFNA in their water that exceeds EPA guidelines.”
     • “158 million people have a measurable amount of PFAS in their water.”
     • “73 million people have an amount that exceeds EPA forever chemical limits.”
2. For Target 10.2:
   • Qualitative/Demographic Indicator: The article implies an indicator related to the proportion of different population groups affected by pollution. The statement that “Black communities and Hispanic communities are… more likely to be exposed to PFAS in drinking water” suggests that progress could be measured by tracking and reducing the racial and ethnic disparities in exposure rates to contaminated water.
3. For Targets 6.3 and 12.4:
   • Geographic Indicator: The extent of chemical contamination is mentioned as an indicator. The discovery of PFNA in the “tap water” of “28 states” serves as a measure of the widespread release of these hazardous chemicals into the environment and water supplies.
4. For Targets 16.6 and 16.7:
   • Governance Indicators (Implied): The article implies several indicators related to institutional integrity and responsiveness.
     • The number of finalized scientific reports withheld from public release by government agencies. The article’s focus on the delayed PFNA report is a prime example.
     • The number of environmental protection standards or regulations weakened or revoked against scientific advice. The article mentions the administration’s move to “revoke four of the six PFAS standards that EPA issued under the Biden administration.”
     • The level of influence of corporate lobbying on environmental policy, as evidenced by the “wish list of deregulation” from chemical manufacturers being acted upon by the administration.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: huffpost.com