A new study spurring international headlines appears to suggest that pre- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as “forever chemicals,” may be speeding up aging for men in their 50s and early 60s.
However, experts caution that proving cause and effect isn’t that simple.
Karl Jobst, associate professor at Memorial University, also noted that “the authors explicitly acknowledge their study design limits causal inference,” saying “it’s not possible to definitively link cause and effect.”
“Nevertheless, the observation of an association underscore the need to better understand the health effects associated with PFAS exposure,” he said in an emailed statement to Global News.
Published in the journal Frontiers in Aging, authors of the study — which has been widely reported on across international media in recent days — used public data from a randomly chosen group of 326 older women and men enrolled in 1999 and 2000 in the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Each had donated a blood sample, which was used to measure the concentration of 11 PFAS.
“These findings underscore the need to regulate emerging PFAS and integrate epigenetic biomarkers into environmental health risk assessments.”
Tarek Rouissi, assistant professor at the Institut National de la Recherche Scientifique, pointed out that the age ranges the study focused on were “surprising” to him.
“I think it’s confirming what we have observed in the last 10 to 15 years regarding this area of research,” he said.
Marc-André Verner, a full professor at the department of environmental and occupational health at the Université de Montréal, said in anemailed statement to Global News that he has “reasons to question the validity of the study.”
“There is no description of how this sample was selected, and how it compares to the whole population,” he said.
“The discussion talks about results adjusted for false discovery rate (FDR), but the analysis is not described in the methods or results,” he continued. “Even the authors recognize it ‘FDR adjustment attenuated some nominally significant associations, suggesting potential false positives and indicating that our findings should be interpreted as hypothesis- generating.’”
The American Chemistry Council, an industry association for chemical companies, called the study “exploratory research based on a very small sample of older adults using data collected more than twenty years ago.”
Get weekly health news
Receive the latest medical news and health information delivered to you every Sunday.
“It is not clear why such old samples were used in this work,” Tom Flanagin, senior director of product communications, said in an emailed statement to Global News.
“As the authors acknowledge, the study is cross-sectional, measuring PFAS levels and epigenetic age at the same moment in time, so it cannot establish cause and effect. The authors also note that several findings do not remain statistically robust after correction for multiple comparisons, and that only two of the PFAS examined in the study showed an association with any aging metric.
“This paper does not provide evidence that PFAS exposure causes aging, nor does it change the extensive body of scientific and regulatory work already underway to understand and manage specific PFAS of potential concern.”
Coined “forever chemicals” due to the years it takes for them to break down, PFAS are “a group of thousands of human-made chemicals that are used as surfactants, lubricants and repellents for dirt, water and grease in a wide range of products,” according to Health Canada.
Health Canada also states that PFAS “don’t break down easily and they stay in the environment for long periods of time.”
Some examples of products they are used in are paints, coatings and building materials, cosmetics, pesticides, cleaning products, waxes and polishes.
People can also be exposed to PFAS in drinking water, both indoor and outdoor air, house dust and food.
Health Canada states that exposure to PFAS can affect the liver, kidney, thyroid, bodyweight, metabolism, the immune and nervous systems, development and the reproductive system.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have also stated that PFAS are present in the blood of 98 per cent of Americans.
PFAS were also found to be dangerous in the environment, stating that “PFAS are harmful to wildlife and can build up in living organisms. These substances do not break down easily and remain in the environment for long periods of time.”
The Frontiers in Aging findings “suggest midlife (50–64 years) as a critical window for PFNA-driven aging, which aligns with emerging evidence on the significant impact of environmental exposures during this period.”
In addition, the study suggested that PFAS concentrations “did not differ between women and men or across age classes” or that “there was any correlation of other substances tested and biological age.”
Actions have taken place worldwide to reduce the amount of PFAS in products.
France banned the use of all PFAS in clothing and cosmetics on Jan. 1, 2026, with the European Union also considering a similar ban. New Zealand also enacted a ban on PFAS in cosmetic products that will be in effect as of Dec. 31, 2026.
“Anything less is a concession to industry pressure and will leave communities and ecosystems exposed for generations to come,” Anne-Sofie Bäckar, executive director for Swedish organization ChemSec, stated in a July 2025 press release.
Miriam L. Diamond, professor at the University of Toronto in the department of earth sciences, says Canada still has work to do regarding PFAS in comparison to other countries.
“We were early in that the first regulations were proposed in 2006 and came into course in 2008, but since then we’ve been kind of slow,” she said.
Rouissi also said a solution is not simple to create.
“Sometimes it’s difficult to find the alternative to some chemicals. It’s easy to say we would like to remove and to avoid using this,” he said. “But it’s under nature first, it’s not degradable. And sometimes when it’s degraded, it comes to another kind of compound, which is more toxic. It’s a challenge.”
Rouissi says a major aspect of protection from PFAS comes from water sources, and that it is vital “to preserve what we have and to identify the source of contamination.”
Statistics Canada released the State of Pre- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report in March 2025, which found that “the class of PFAS, excluding fluoropolymers, is harmful to human health and the environment.”
The report highlights how “exposure to PFAS can adversely affect multiple organs and systems including the liver, kidneys, thyroid, immune system, nervous system, metabolism and body weight, and reproduction and development.”
PFAS were also found to be dangerous in the environment, stating that “PFAS are harmful to wildlife and can build up in living organisms. These substances do not break down easily and remain in the environment for long periods of time.”
The Canadian government has also responded by excluding fluoropolymers to Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999 (CEPA).
“Through a step-by-step approach, the Government will prioritize the protection of health and the environment while considering factors such as the availability of alternatives. Phase 1, starting in 2025, will address PFAS in firefighting foams to better protect firefighters and the environment,” the news release reads.
“Phase 2 will focus on limiting exposure to PFAS in products that are not needed for the protection of human health, safety, or the environment. This will include products like cosmetics, food packaging materials, and textiles.”
In addition, the government of Canada will also be requiring “manufacturing and other facilities to report the use of PFAS to the National Pollutant Release Inventory. This data will improve understanding of how PFAS are used in Canada, help evaluate possible industrial PFAS contamination, and support efforts to reduce environmental and human exposure to harmful substances.”
This began at the start of 2025.
