For decades, the world has enjoyed the convenience of products that resist heat, stains, grease, and water—thanks to a family of synthetic compounds known as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. But a growing body of evidence and a series of recent crises have thrown these so-called "forever chemicals" into the spotlight, raising urgent questions about the safety of our drinking water and the best ways to protect public health.
On November 3, 2025, the NSW Health Expert Advisory Panel on PFAS released its final report, aiming to provide clarity amid mounting public anxiety about PFAS exposure in Australia. According to The Sydney Morning Herald, the panel, which included leading experts in toxicology, oncology, cardiology, public health, and risk communication, pored over the latest Australian and international research to assess the true impact of PFAS on human health. Their conclusion? While PFAS exposure has been linked to a range of health issues—including high cholesterol, reduced kidney function, immune system changes, hormone disruptions, liver enzyme changes, menstruation problems, lower birthweight, high blood pressure during pregnancy, and some cancers—the actual health effects appear to be small for most people.
This doesn’t mean that communities aren’t worried. In fact, concern is running high, particularly in places like the Blue Mountains and Narrabri Shire, where PFAS contamination has hit close to home. The panel acknowledged the "genuine concern" in these communities and emphasized the need for risk communication that is "tailored to the diverse levels of concern" found across the population. Dr. Kerry Chant, NSW's chief health officer, underscored this point: "There is considerable concern, particularly in the Blue Mountains community, about exposure to PFAS through drinking water, and NSW Health takes these concerns very seriously."
The roots of the issue go back to the 1940s, when PFAS began to be widely used in everything from firefighting foams to nonstick cookware. Because these chemicals don’t easily break down, they persist in soil and water for decades—earning the nickname "forever chemicals." In recent years, as more research has emerged and testing methods have improved, authorities have discovered PFAS contamination in water sources around the world, from Michigan and Maine in the United States to Queensland and New South Wales in Australia, and across the United Kingdom.
In Narrabri Shire, a rural Australian town of nearly 13,000 people, the crisis has reached a tipping point. As reported by ABC News, two of the town’s three main drinking water bores were shut down in July 2025 after tests revealed high levels of PFAS, following new national guidelines that lowered the allowable limits. With only one bore left—running at near capacity—the town has imposed Level 4 water restrictions, banning car washing and pool filling, and limiting hose use to overnight hours. Mayor Darrell Tiemens voiced the community’s frustration: "We are relying on one source of water, and for a town the size of Narrabri, it's unacceptable. The NSW government is working with us, but it's taking too long."
The health risks associated with PFAS exposure are not trivial. Studies have linked these chemicals to certain cancers, immune system suppression, and health issues in children. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified PFOA—a prominent PFAS compound—as "cancer causing" and PFOS as "possibly cancer causing." However, the NSW panel was careful to note that these hazard classifications don’t specify safe exposure levels or quantify the degree of risk. Based on human epidemiological studies and typical exposure levels in Australia, the panel concluded that the absolute cancer risk from PFAS is low.
One of the strongest messages from the NSW panel is that individual blood testing for PFAS offers no clear medical benefit. PFAS chemicals appear in more than 95 percent of people tested, making it difficult to interpret results or predict health outcomes. The panel explicitly advised against such testing, as well as against interventions like phlebotomy or cholesterol-lowering medications to reduce PFAS in the blood, citing "uncertain" benefits and potential harms such as anemia or drug interactions. Instead, clinicians are urged to focus on standard preventive health measures and to provide evidence-based counseling to patients concerned about PFAS exposure.
The situation is far from unique to Australia. In England and Wales, the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) issued orders in November 2025 requiring water companies to address PFAS contamination after "potentially dangerous" levels were found in untreated water sources serving more than six million people. According to the BBC, hundreds of water treatment sites, reservoirs, and supply systems were flagged, with companies like Anglian Water, Wessex Water, Severn Trent Water, South Staffordshire Water, South West Water, Affinity Water, and United Utilities all told to act. Some DWI notices cited "inadequate treatment process to remove PFAS," while others warned of "increasing PFAS levels" that could breach safety limits.
Experts warn that the UK's drinking water standards for PFAS, which have tightened dramatically in recent years—from a PFOA limit of 10,000 nanograms per liter in 2007 to just 100 ng/l for total PFAS in 2025—may still not be protective enough. Professor Hans Peter Arp, a PFAS specialist, noted that Denmark’s much stricter standard is just 2 ng/l for a group of four PFAS, and he cautioned that "there is likely a portion of the population that has been affected." The cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination across the UK and Europe is staggering—estimated at £1.6 trillion over 20 years, or £84 billion annually.
PFAS pollution stems from a wide array of sources: airports, military sites, chemical manufacturers, sewage treatment plants, fire stations, metal and paper mills, textile factories, energy facilities, landfills, and even pesticides. Sewage sludge spread on farmland can further taint soil and water, making the challenge of cleanup even more daunting. Water UK, which represents the industry, has called for a national plan to remove PFAS from the environment—one that should be paid for by manufacturers, not the public. "All water companies have to meet stringent government standards and testing, including on PFAS, so we can all have complete confidence in the quality of our tap water whenever and wherever we use it," a Water UK spokesperson said.
Meanwhile, residents in affected communities worry about who will foot the bill for cleanup and infrastructure upgrades. In Narrabri, the New South Wales government has pledged to help, with Water Minister Rose Jackson promising that "everything possible" will be done to secure safe water. Plans include installing a new pump, exploring alternative sources, and possibly deploying temporary treatment units or bottled water deliveries if needed. But long-term solutions will require new infrastructure, stricter regulation of PFAS nationwide, and comprehensive cleanup programs.
Back in Australia, the NSW Health panel supports ongoing population monitoring to track changes in PFAS levels, but it urges authorities not to derive threshold levels from current human epidemiological studies, citing the risks of bias and confounding. Instead, it backs Australia’s conservative approach of setting exposure limits based on animal studies with added safety factors, as recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council.
For now, the message from experts is clear: PFAS are everywhere, their health effects appear to be small at typical exposure levels, but continued vigilance, transparent communication, and robust regulation are essential. The road to clean, safe water is long—and the world is just beginning to grapple with the true legacy of "forever chemicals."
