New research from the National Institutes of Health has found that two widely used “forever chemicals” are associated with a higher risk of a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer, raising fresh questions about chemical exposure in everyday products.
The chemicals, perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), belong to a class of synthetic compounds known as PFAS that break down extremely slowly and accumulate in the environment and the human body. They have long been used in nonstick cookware, upholstery, clothing, food packaging and personal care products.
The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that women with higher blood levels of PFOA and PFOS were more likely to develop estrogen receptor-negative, or ER-negative, breast cancer. According to a Department of Health and Human Services press release, ER-negative cancers tend to be more aggressive and carry worse outcomes than breast cancers that respond to estrogen.
The data came from the Sister Study, a large federal research project examining environmental and genetic factors in breast cancer. All participants had a sister previously diagnosed with breast cancer but had not been diagnosed themselves at enrollment. Researchers measured 17 different PFAS in blood samples collected before diagnosis from 1,609 women who later developed breast cancer, comparing them against a group of 2,269 women who did not.
Women in the highest PFOA exposure group had a 67% higher rate of ER-negative breast cancer than those in the lowest group. For PFOS, the rate was 93% higher. Researchers emphasized these are relative differences between exposure groups, not an individual’s actual probability of developing cancer, and found no clear link between either chemical and breast cancer overall.
“This study, along with the accompanying meta-analysis of previous studies, provides evidence that two PFAS are related to a higher ER-negative breast cancer risk,” said study leader Alexandra White, Ph.D., a researcher at the NIH, in comments to Fox News Digital.
White cautioned that the study largely examined older PFAS compounds that have been phased out in recent years. Replacement chemicals, she said, are less understood. “They tend to be shorter-chain compounds and may be less persistent in our bodies and the environment, but we know little about how they may influence health outcomes, such as breast cancer,” she said.
The findings establish an association, not proof that the chemicals cause cancer, and the study’s authors say more research is needed.
Government response
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. weighed in on the findings, saying “women deserve clear answers about how chemicals in their environment may affect their health,” and calling for further investigation.
“Under President Trump’s leadership, we will pursue the evidence, confront environmental health risks and give women the information they need to protect their health,” Kennedy said.
Dr. Tiffany Troso-Sandoval, a New York City-based medical oncologist who spent more than 25 years at Memorial Sloan Kettering, said forever chemicals accumulate in the body over time and can contribute to cellular damage. “Oftentimes, once you’ve been exposed to them, they will accumulate in your body and cause havoc, and can actually increase the risk of carcinogenic transformation of cells,” she told Fox News Digital. “What was interesting about this study is that the link was found only in ER-negative breast cancers, which is a known aggressive subtype of cancer.”
Troso-Sandoval noted that few risk factors beyond genetic predisposition are known for ER-negative breast cancer, and stressed that the study did not find an increased risk for breast cancer generally. She suggested PFAS may damage DNA or impair the body’s ability to repair that damage or eliminate cancerous cells, though she said the presence of higher PFAS levels in patients does not prove the chemicals caused their cancer.
Che-Jung Chang, Ph.D., the study’s first author and a former NIH research fellow now at DLH, noted that while PFAS persist in the environment and the body, exposure to them is “potentially modifiable.” “People can take steps to reduce their exposure, and these findings could open new avenues for prevention,” she said.
What people can do
Troso-Sandoval recommended that individuals review the everyday products most likely to expose them to PFAS and similar compounds, starting with items used most frequently. She singled out plastic food containers as a particular concern.
“Maybe consider cooking with stainless steel pots and pans,” she advised. “I recommend not heating up any food in plastic containers, because as you heat these plastics, they tend to leach more of the compounds into our foods.”
She also raised concerns about black plastic utensils, which can contain other contaminants such as flame retardants, and recommended reviewing cosmetics and personal care products for PFAS content as well.
Add comment