Fire-safety officials from the aviation and oil and gas industries have joined forces with firefighter's trade unions, urging governments across the world to protect environmental and human health by banning the use of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), a toxic chemical commonly used in firefighting foams.

Do Berkey filters remove PFOA and PFAS?

Yes, the Berkey filter systems will remove PFOA's and PFAS to greater than 99.9%. PFAS's fall under the category of PFC's - Perfluorinated Chemicals. PFOA, PFOS, etc. Berkey water filter PFOA test results can be found here.

What Are PFOA's?

PFOA and other fluorinated organic compounds (PFAS) are widely used in both domestic and industrial applications, including oil and stain resistant treatments, textiles, and food packaging, as well as industrial processes. PFOA-containing firefighting foam is one of the biggest causes of drinking water contamination, polluting water sources with harmful chemicals that have been linked to health impacts such as disruption of the endocrine system, impairment of fetal development and cancer.

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. (April 6, 2012) Firefighting foam covers the scene of a crash of an F/A-18D Hornet assigned to Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 106, April 6, 2012. Initial reports indicate that at approximately 12:05 p.m., the jet crashed just after takeoff at an apartment complex in Virginia Beach. Both air crew safely ejected from the aircraft and are being treated at a local hospital. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Antonio P. Turretto Ramos/Released) 120406-N-DC018-421

There has been increasing focus on PFOA together with other PFAS chemicals recently over mounting concern for their contribution to drinking water contamination. In the US, these chemicals — which persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in the body — have been detected in a third of all drinking water sources across the country.

One of the key issues raised at the UN Conference of the Parties that was recently held in Geneva, was whether an exemption should be made for the use of PFOA in firefighting foams. Fire-safety experts believe that an exemption is not warranted as safer cost-effective fluorine-free alternatives that are just as efficient as PFOA-containing firefighting foams are available, which do not have a negative impact on the environment or human health, nor the expense associated with cleanup as a result of using toxic chemicals.

At a press conference during the event, fire safety experts and firefighters, whose health is directly impacted by vocational exposure to these chemicals, called for a ban on the use of fluorinated chemicals in firefighting foams.

"Governments should listen carefully to industry fire safety professionals and firefighters who actually put out fires, not the polluting fluorine chemical industry who is lobbying for loopholes to continue selling their toxic products," said Pamela Miller, a convener of the expert group and Co-Chair of IPEN. "Water is a precious resource and clean water a fundamental human right; now is the time to fulfill the Stockholm Convention's protective objective and stop polluting it."

At the UN Conference a team of international negotiators unanimously agreed to add PFOA and its associated compounds to Annexure A of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), which effectively requires countries to takes steps to stop its production and use, recommending a global ban on the use of PFOA. However, they did approve several five-year exemptions, including its use in firefighting foams under special controlled conditions, which include countries prohibiting the production, exporting or importing of firefighting foams containing PFOA and PFOS chemicals, or using foams containing these toxic chemicals for firefighting training. The delegates final decision also noted that safer alternatives should be used when these were available, efficient and it was feasible to use them, adding that other PFAS containing firefighting foams "could have negative environmental, human health and socioeconomic impacts due to their persistence and mobility."

China, the European Union and Iran all requested exemptions during the event rather than via the Stockholm Convention's scientific review committee prior to the event, China and the EU each requested exemptions at the event. The international NGO network, IPEN, lodged a protest against the late exemption requests.

Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith, National Toxics Network and IPEN advisor, said that although the "global ban on PFOA and the warning about not using PFAS alternatives starts a new era in addressing this entire class of persistent, toxic chemicals ... some governments betrayed the treaty's scientific review process by suddenly adding vast, wide-ranging loopholes that continue PFOA's cycle of harm."

The 182 nations that have ratified the Stockholm Convention now have 12 months to implement the ban on these chemicals. However, this does not apply to the US as it is not a party to the Convention.

But all is not lost. The US is taking steps to restrict the use of PFOA and other fluorinated chemicals. Earlier this year, the EPA outlined a federal plan to reduce the risks associated with PFAS chemicals. According to the EPA's acting administrator this would be the "most comprehensive cross-agency action plan for a chemical of concern ever undertaken by the agency."