Report on Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Contamination in Water Supplies and the Brewing Industry

Executive Summary

This report examines the pervasive issue of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) contamination in municipal water supplies and its subsequent impact on the commercial brewing industry. A recent study by RTI International confirmed a direct correlation between PFAS levels in water sources and their presence in finished beer products. This contamination poses significant challenges to public health, environmental safety, and sustainable production practices, directly impacting the achievement of several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production).

PFAS Contamination: A Public Health and Environmental Challenge

The “Forever Chemical” Problem and its Link to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of synthetic chemicals used in numerous industrial and consumer products, including non-stick cookware, textiles, and firefighting foams. Their resistance to degradation has earned them the name “forever chemicals.” The presence of these substances in drinking water is a direct threat to SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being. Documented health risks associated with PFAS exposure include:

• Impaired liver function
• High cholesterol
• Decreased vaccine efficacy in children
• Complications during pregnancy and low birth weight

Recent regulatory rollbacks by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning certain PFAS compounds highlight the ongoing governance challenges in protecting public health from these persistent pollutants.

Water Contamination and the Imperative for SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

The contamination of water sources is the primary pathway for PFAS entering the food and beverage supply chain. The issue underscores the critical importance of SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation, which advocates for universal access to safe and affordable drinking water. The reliance of both the public and industries like brewing on municipal water systems necessitates robust purification and management to eliminate such harmful contaminants. The case of homebrewers and commercial entities investing in expensive reverse-osmosis filtration systems demonstrates a reactive measure where the goals of SDG 6 have not been proactively met by public infrastructure or pollution control.

Research Findings: The “Hold My Beer” Study

Study Overview and Methodology

A study conducted by RTI International, titled “Hold My Beer,” investigated the presence of PFAS in commercially available beers. Researchers sampled beers brewed in various North Carolina counties with known PFAS contamination, as well as from other locations in the U.S., Mexico, and Europe. Samples were analyzed using liquid chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify and quantify specific PFAS compounds.

Key Findings

The research established a clear linkage between contaminated water supplies and the final beverage product. Key findings from the study include:

• PFAS were detected in 95% of all beer samples tested.
• A direct correlation was found between high levels of PFAS in a brewery’s local water supply and the levels found in its beer.
• Even in areas with relatively low municipal water contamination, pulses of pollution (e.g., from firefighting foam runoff) could lead to significant PFAS levels in specific batches of beer.
• Beers from large-scale breweries were less likely to contain PFAS, likely due to more advanced, in-house water filtration systems.

Implications for Sustainable Production and Consumption

Challenges to SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

The findings present a significant challenge to SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production. This goal calls for industries to adopt sustainable practices and for consumers to be aware of the health and environmental impacts of their choices. The brewing industry, which requires approximately seven to eight gallons of water to produce one gallon of beer, is heavily dependent on a clean water supply.

1. Small Business Vulnerability: Small breweries, coffee shops, and other food producers are more reliant on the quality of municipal water and often lack the capital for advanced filtration systems, making them vulnerable to source water contamination.
2. Industry Responsibility: The NC Craft Brewers Guild has acknowledged that access to safe water is a fundamental right and advocates for a clean municipal water supply, recognizing its critical importance for product quality and public health.
3. Consumer Awareness: The presence of “forever chemicals” in common consumer goods like beer highlights a gap in transparency and safety within the production chain.

Responses and Future Outlook

Remediation Efforts and Calls for Governance

In response to the contamination crisis, some water utilities in affected areas, such as New Hanover and Chatham counties, have invested millions in upgrading their filtration systems to remove PFAS. However, environmental advocacy groups argue that existing authority under the Clean Water Act should be used more forcefully to hold polluters accountable and prevent discharge at the source.

Conclusion: An Integrated Approach to Achieving the SDGs

The issue of PFAS in water and beer is a clear illustration of the interconnectedness of public health, environmental management, and industrial practice. Addressing this challenge requires a multi-faceted approach that aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals. Achieving SDG 6 through investment in advanced water purification and stringent pollution controls is fundamental. This, in turn, protects SDG 3 by reducing public exposure to harmful chemicals and enables industries to advance SDG 12 by ensuring their production processes are safe and sustainable. Holding polluters accountable and strengthening environmental regulations are essential steps toward safeguarding community health and ensuring the long-term vitality of industries reliant on clean water.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

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

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article directly connects the presence of PFAS chemicals in water to a range of negative health outcomes. It states that “evidence that these forever chemicals cause a range of health problems, including high cholesterol, impaired liver function and decreased vaccine efficacy.” It also mentions that “PFOA and PFOS — two types of PFAS — can cause complications during pregnancy and lead to low birth weight.” This focus on the health impacts of chemical pollutants links the article’s core issues to SDG 3.

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire narrative revolves around the contamination of drinking water with PFAS chemicals. It discusses the pollution of the Cape Fear River, the presence of PFAS in municipal water supplies in various North Carolina counties, and the efforts by individuals (Keith Turner’s reverse-osmosis filter) and public utilities (“Water utilities in New Hanover and Chatham counties spent millions to upgrade their filtration systems”) to achieve safe, clean water. The NC Craft Brewers Guild’s statement that “access to safe water is a fundamental human right” reinforces this connection.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  The article highlights issues of industrial pollution and chemical management. It mentions that Chemours had been “polluting the lower Cape Fear River with toxic GenX, a type of PFAS” and that these chemicals are used in “non-stick cookware, textiles, food packaging and other manufacturing processes.” This points to unsustainable production patterns and the need for environmentally sound management of chemicals throughout their lifecycle, a key aspect of SDG 12.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  The pollution of the Cape Fear River is a clear example of land-based activities harming aquatic ecosystems. The article notes that polluters have been “discharging these chemicals into our water,” which directly impacts life below water. The movement of these pollutants through waterways, as described in the article, affects the entire aquatic environment, not just the water intended for human consumption.

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

1. Target 3.9: Substantially reduce deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and pollution

   This target is directly relevant as the article’s primary concern is the health risks posed by PFAS. It explicitly lists illnesses like “high cholesterol, impaired liver function,” and pregnancy complications caused by these hazardous chemicals in the water supply. The entire effort to filter and remove PFAS is aimed at mitigating these health risks.

2. Target 6.1: Achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water

   The article demonstrates that access to safe drinking water is compromised in Chatham County and other areas due to PFAS contamination. The fact that a resident felt the need to buy a “$700 filter” and that public utilities are spending “millions to upgrade their filtration systems” shows the ongoing effort and challenge in achieving this target.

3. Target 6.3: Improve water quality by reducing pollution and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals

   The core problem described is the failure to meet this target. The article details how companies like Chemours have been “polluting the lower Cape Fear River with toxic GenX” and how industrial discharges lead to widespread contamination. The study’s finding of a “definite linkage between PFAS in water supplies and PFAS in the actual beverage” is a direct consequence of this pollution.

4. Target 12.4: Achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes

   The article is a case study of the consequences of failing to meet this target. The widespread presence of “forever chemicals” from manufacturing processes and their discharge into the environment demonstrates a lack of sound management. The discussion of the EPA’s regulations and the call for polluters to be “held accountable for discharging these chemicals” points to the need for better enforcement and management systems as outlined in this target.

5. Target 14.1: Prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities

   The pollution of the Cape Fear River by the chemical company Chemours is a textbook example of pollution from a land-based activity. The article explains how this discharge contaminates the river, which ultimately impacts larger bodies of water and aquatic ecosystems, directly addressing the concern of this target.

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

• Indicator: Concentration of pollutants in water

  The article provides specific quantitative data that can be used as an indicator. It states that in 2019, “Mecklenburg County PFAS levels were relatively low, about 4.8 parts per trillion, compared to Chatham County, where PFAS levels exceeded 200 ppt.” These measurements are direct indicators of water quality (Target 6.3) and exposure to hazardous chemicals (Target 3.9).

• Indicator: Presence of contaminants in consumer products

  The RTI International study provides a clear indicator by testing for PFAS in beer. The finding that “they found PFAS in 95% of all the samples they tested” serves as a proxy indicator for how effectively pollutants are being managed in the food and beverage supply chain (Target 12.4) and the extent of the public’s exposure to contaminated water (Target 6.1).

• Indicator: Implementation of water filtration technologies

  The article implies this indicator by describing actions taken to improve water safety. It mentions Keith Turner’s personal “reverse-osmosis filter” and the fact that “Water utilities in New Hanover and Chatham counties spent millions to upgrade their filtration systems.” The adoption rate and effectiveness of such technologies are measurable indicators of progress towards providing safe drinking water (Target 6.1).

• Indicator: Regulatory standards and enforcement

  The article discusses the role of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in setting and rolling back regulations on PFAS. It mentions the EPA’s drinking water standards and the claim by the Southern Environmental Law Center that regulators “could be doing more with their existing authority under the Clean Water Act.” The establishment and enforcement of such standards are key indicators for the sound management of chemicals (Target 12.4) and reducing pollution (Target 6.3).

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: wfae.org