And then after reading all that the verrrry bottom of the article has a direct statement from a paper industry consortium group that expressly states in no uncertain terms that this chemical is not used in the manufacture of any toilet paper or tissue sold in the US. So either the author of the article got the lab results wrong or the industry partner is lying.
Frankly, the statement was pretty convincing. I think we need to reserve judgement here until some additional evidence shows this chemical wasn’t detected erroneously.
Since the two sides literally contradicted each other 100% we can’t draw anything meaningful from this article at all without additional 3rd party testing to corroborate.
I have been in paper mills, and they use millions of gallons of water.
It was probably in the water...........
They discuss how the study includes PFOA, which is a PFAS and is widely found in the environment and the samples studies were close to or below the limit of detection. Also, they claim no PFAS are used in the production of toilet paper or tissue products in the US.
Here is the statement for brevity:
““PFAS (including 6:2 diPAP) is not used in the manufacture of toilet paper, or in the production of other tissue products in the United States.
“The University of Florida study examines concentration information in toilet paper for PFAS including PFOA, the most studied PFAS. However, the study fails to acknowledge that PFOA is widespread in the environment. In the study, toilet paper samples tested were close to or below the limit of detection, consistent with PFOA levels found in the environment and not attributable to the manufacturing process.”
So yeah, they state they don’t use them in the manufacture or production thereof, but they also state that it is inevitable that at least PFOA will show up in nearly undectable levels as a matter of course since it is throughout the environment (i.e. they do not intentionally use PFOA).
So basically, the industry expert cited is clarifying that the study doesn’t really reach the level of sensationalism that the article or study suggest.