Penguin 'Toxicologists' Find PFAS Chemicals in Remote Patagonia
ucdavis.edu
ucdavis.edu
1. Why you/penguins should care about this: PFAS suppress immune function and reduce reproductive success in birds [1]. They transfer from mothers to eggs and disrupt thyroid hormones and immune organ development in avian embryos [2]. In humans, IARC classified PFOA as a Group 1 carcinogen in 2023, which means there is the highest classification (i.e. International Agency for Research on Cancer is convinced PFAS causes cancer). A 2x increase in serum PFAS is associated with a 49% drop in vaccine antibody levels in children [3]. These are the same compounds showing up in >90% of penguin samples in remote Patagonia. They don't break down. They bioaccumulate up the food chain. And the "safer replacements" like GenX are clearly reaching the ends of the earth too. This is bad for penguins and for people.
2. This is a problem I'm taking seriously. My startup, NeutraOat (neutraoat.com) is developing a modified oat fiber that selectively binds PFAS and plasticizers in the GI tract without stripping nutrients like charcoal does. It will also remove PFAS from the blood. Early-stage, binding data is promising. Clinical trial happening in ~6-9 months. Website has our early data and a pre-order signup form.
[1] Vendl et al., "Profiling research on PFAS in wildlife," Ecol Solut Evid, 2024. https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002... [2] Halldin et al., "Developmental exposure to a mixture of PFAAs affects the thyroid hormone system and the bursa of Fabricius in the chicken," Sci Rep, 2019. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56200-9 [3] Grandjean et al., JAMA 2012;307(4):391–397. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22274686/
You said it removes them from the blood: does the body dump microplastics in the gut for your product to remove them from the blood or how does it work (if you can answer due to proprietary reasons)?
Are saunas and blood donations not also effective for this?
> Are saunas and blood donations not also effective for this?
Yes, plasma & blood donations are good at reducing PFAS blood concentration. Some(?) firefighting foam contains PFAS, so they tend to have high blood concentrations. Donations have shown to significantly reduce that: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8994130/
Unfortunately, PFAS sticks around forever, so everywhere that the old firefighting foam was deployed (e.g. air force bases) still has high levels of PFAS contamination.
They aren't particularly similar.
Honestly, the way the two are conflated is quite annoying. You should be terrified of PFAS. You should be mildly worried about microplastics, mostly because there isn't enough research on the effects yet.
You could just do phlebotomy (blood letting) where your blood is discarded in case you have insanely high PFAS.
In order to reduce contamination in my home's drinking water, I have a whole-home water filtration that's lab certified to NSF 53 standards (and beyond) to remove PFAS, and then for drinking and cooking usages, I further filter water via a 5-stage RO system that's certified to NSF 58 standards (and beyond). Not just drinking/cooking incurs contamination, water is aerosolized and breathed in while showering as an example. I only cook using bare metal; cast iron, carbon steel, stainless steel, glass and ceramic bakeware. Even with these precautions, I still get PFAS exposure just via the foods I eat, and being exposed in the overall environment (e.g. through rainfall).
[1]: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-news-release/millions-us-... [2]: https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/
Regardless, the main thing about cast iron is to use it all the time. If you really, truly use cast iron all the time, it will never have food stick to it, you'll never need to "scrub" it. Hot water in the pan, let it sit for 10 seconds, scour with a normal dishes brush or whatever you use, put the pan on the stove, heat till there's no water, hit quickly with an oil spray. Notice i didn't mention soap. It takes EXACTLY the same amount of time as cleaning an older teflon pan, less the heating part. I just look at the heating as sterilization, and i don't worry about it.
I have 3 induction hobs, i switched to 100% cast iron and stainless cookware, and i'm happy. I just got tired of being upset about flakes/damage to my cookware from other people using it. MIL gave me a set of lodge she didn't want, plus i had 3 pans from ages ago that we re-seasoned and started using. Cast iron griddle, cast iron flat weight.
If my arthritis gets so bad i can't lift the pans at all, i might consider carbon steel or something, but i haven't used it yet. I'm better at cooking on cast iron than stainless, but i can make stainless work, too; it's just more hands-on than cast iron or teflon.
I've used peanut, rapeseed, olive, coconut, avocado oils; butter, bacon and other rendered fat. All work fine, although butter i'd put some other oil in with it. I only use avocado, peanut, olive, and bacon, in that order these days because of diet and other concerns.
We use cast iron daily, but I have been unable to find any health studies that looked at the quasi plastic polymerized fats that make up the cast iron cooking surface. Not even studies to determine what they are exactly. I wouldn't be slightly surprised if it's found that eating the bits of scraped up "seasoning" while cooking leads to cancer or something.
So I think that leaves stainless steel as the ultimate health conscious cooking pan.
I draw the line at teflon flakes, you draw the line at what apparently is just another type of "quasi plastic"
Blood donations are also somewhat effective, saunas less so. Also, to be clear, PFAS are very different from microplastics. PFAS are the Teflon chemical.
Teflon is PTFE, which is fully fluorinated but is also very much a plastic: it’s a highly unreactive solid at reasonable temperatures (which sadly do not include temperatures commonly encountered on stoves).
By “the Teflon chemical” are you perhaps referring to the various nasty liquid, water-soluble surfactants commonly used in factories that make or process PTFE? Those include PFOA, PFOS, and the newer and not obviously any safer “GenX” compounds.
I wonder if there's a safe way to equip people to just do simple bloodletting if they have high exposure to PFAS. I mean obviously it's better to donate, even in that case, given the steady state of most blood banks. But it's still a bit of a pain in the ass.
Blood donations clearly do.
Microplastics and PFAS aren't synonyms however.
What isn't established is a dose dependant harm from PFAS. Some things are harmful in minute quantities to the point it doesn't matter if you have a lot or a little.
Lead has a clear dose response but a relatively low threshold for noticeable harm. It's not clear what PFAS curve will look like.
I won't restart the linear no threshold flame wars about radiation harm but let's just say it's not always intuitive.
Seriously though, amazing idea I love this.
GLPs are similar to gambling?
I'm not into GLPs, but I could see a reasonable case made for supporting them. For most of the past 50K years, we either had to hunt, walk around, farm, split wood etc. which means burning 500+ calories daily. Now, most of us sit in offices 8 hours a day using 0 calories and 0 muscle, surrounded by calories.
It's not surprising really that the default in this situation is obesity.
I've signed up and look forward to following your success.
Your mission is near and dear to my heart- I grew up on an US Air Force base that is a PFAS superfund site and didn't find out about it until much later in life. Recently I've jumped into research linking PFAS contamination in dog food to canine Addison's disease.
We've been pretty cavalier with PFAS and it's horrifying.
It's almost like legislators saw that the machines could ostensibly detect 4 parts-per-trillion and decided that should be the limit without continuing to read the machine manual to describe the reduction in accuracy at that threshold level.
The levels in this test were close to this threshold and there was one outlier sample that severely changed the average results. The testing methodology also involved several laboratory steps where contamination could have occurred.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/03/260329222938.h...
I'm all for removing PFAS and similar chemicals from the many places and uses they aren't needed, but if people don't care about PFAS in their tap water, they certainly aren't going to care about penguin PFAS.
The interesting part here is using the animals as “scientists” to collect samples in their habitats for years (2022-2024) instead of sending humans to collect samples. This is far more reliable in my opinion
45% of US households contain PFAS, apparently, but no mitigation or even manufacturing bans are required for years.
In the US, one side cries about regular flouride in the water, but is meh to PFAS. Meanwhile, the other side is supposedly pro-environment, but can't even get the fortitude to ban PFAS ski wax.
The research is academically interesting, but immaterial to actually doing anything about the issue of PFAS.
People don't? Sounds to me like they need to look at history a bit more.
To me, this looks very much like some of the other magical materials...
Lead in gasoline, asbestos as building material, tobacco etc
I definitely agree they need to look at history, consider what they're being exposed to, and understand how simple and easy some of the substitutions/mitigations could be. There's 0 reason why manufacturers are getting 5+ years to phase out a forever chemical in something like ski wax or dental floss.
The ideal societal conditions for, say, a petrochemical company that is creating toxins that are genuinely "forever" for all intents and purposes, is a society where people are exhausted from their terrible job (or two jobs, or job + gig economy side hustle) and spend their leisure time glued to their phones, scrolling AI slop on instagram and gambling away their meagre savings on sports betting and prediction markets.
These are not people who are going to get educated about chemistry.
Scientific expertise is derided as elitism. The president lies constantly by issuing "truths" on his social media platform. Public education gets defunded and IQ scores are declining. Either this is just random societal decay, or this is serving the interests of the rich and powerful. I know where I stand on it. And yes, I'm cranky.
PFAS is the least of our concerns.
Or stainless steel?
Jesus Christ.
Speaking of which, it occurs to me that my toothbrush is also made of plastic, and that most toothpastes are also mildly abrasive...
...which has absolutely nothing to do with the PFOA that you might reasonably be concerned about. Teflon is chemically inert. It's literally used for human body implants. Teflon-coated pans are not your enemy. Fire-fighting foam, on the other hand -- you probably shouldn't bathe in it.
Any test that "detects" teflon in the generic category of "PFAS" is a hopelessly flawed test [1]. Unfortunately, a great many of these papers don't make the distinction, whether intentionally or due to incompetence, or simply because it's far easier to do that, and it gets better headlines.
[1] Important aside: historically, several of the major manufacturers of teflon had problems with PFOA contamination around the factories due to manufacturing processes. This is unrelated to your personal use of a Teflon pan, and also, the process has been changed. If you want to argue that the new process is also polluting, fine, make that argument -- but don't assert that the use of the final product is itself unsafe.
Overheat them, which means the stuff gets into the air. Many many pet birds have died of this only because they're more susceptible
Use the wrong material in them meaning the start to scratch the Teflon layer.
I'm not saying you cannot use them right, but too many people don't and the product isn't safe when improperly used. This is true for many products but in this case plenty of people aren't aware they're holding it wrong.
And again, this has nothing to do with PFAS or PFOA. The principle cause is a complete breakdown of teflon into fluorinated small-molecule gases, such as hydrogen fluoride and tetrafluoroethylene. You're literally burning the coating off. It has as much relationship to PFOA as wood smoke has to wood.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Yes, Teflon is inert but only when it's not exposed to high temperatures (>350F). When heated, such as in a non-stick pan, Teflon gives off fumes which contain byproducts including breakdowns back into PFAS compounds. So /YES/ the use of the final product (as cookware) /is/ unsafe. NOBODY SHOULD BE USING TEFLON NONSTICK COOKWARE.
Completely incorrect. Overheating (aka "burning") completely destroys the molecule, and releases small molecule gases, like hydrogen fluoride. These have no relation to PFAS, they can't turn back into PFAS, and they look nothing like PFAS.
It's like saying that the smoke from burning wood is, in fact, wood.
As a general rule, if something gives off toxic fumes that kill birds, probably don't use it to cook your food, regardless of what specific compounds its emitting, "canaries in coal mines" and all that.
Wrong units. Starts happening at around ~250 C (~480F), not 350F. Completely depolymerizes at around 500C.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0002889738506828
> PFAS is a broad term for Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances which includes several of the compounds that off-gas from overheating Teflon.
Yes, I'm telling you that "PFAS" is a meaningless term that is so broad as to include everything from harmless chemicals (i.e. Teflon) to things that are genuinely toxic (tri-fluoro acetic acid). So using this term as "evidence" of toxicity is just circular logic.
> As a general rule, if something gives off toxic fumes that kill birds, probably don't use it to cook your food, regardless of what specific compounds its emitting, "canaries in coal mines" and all that.
a) It doesn't, unless you specifically overheat it. Don't do that.
b) if that's your standard, you'll definitely want to look at that paper I just linked, because overheating butter in a cast iron pan also kills birds.
I look forward to your campaign against butter. It's certainly more harmful to public health than Teflon!
(To be clear, I am pro-butter and I vote.)
Many places claim 500F is the temperature limit for normal usage of Teflon in a pan, however that's based on the temperature at which it starts degrading, off-gassing begins at lower temperatures. Also, every oil except refined avocado oil will surpass its smoke point at 500F and begin degrading as well, so really you should just be careful with temperature when cooking, regardless of material, but should definitely NOT be using Teflon coated pans.
> Yes, I'm telling you that "PFAS" is a meaningless term that is so broad as to include everything from harmless chemicals (i.e. Teflon) to things that are genuinely toxic (tri-fluoro acetic acid). So using this term as "evidence" of toxicity is just circular logic.
There are no PFAS that are non-toxic. Are you a paid industry shill?
> a) It doesn't, unless you specifically overheat it. Don't do that.
Overheating Teflon pans happens under normal usage simply by exposing it to heat without having food in it, preheating pans is normal behavior when cooking, and is /required/ to reach the Leidenfrost point in other materials (e.g. stainless steel). A material that you have to baby to avoid accidentally releasing toxic fumes /should NOT/ be used for cooking.
> b) if that's your standard, you'll definitely want to look at that paper I just linked, because overheating butter in a cast iron pan also kills birds.
They heated the butter to 500F to produce toxic fumes, which makes sense as you're basically straight up burning it at that point. Butter begins smoking between 310F and 350F depending on milk-fat content, and you should not burn butter. Besides all the other reasons, it tastes and smells horrible. Intentionally burning butter and incidental toxic off-gassing from normal pan preheating are not the same thing.
Important to correct for, but doesn't invalidate the whole microplastics concern.
I wouldn't overestimate the quality of this forum. It certainly has its uses, but I wouldn't overstate the quality of discourse here. It's not that great.