Environmental health agencies are critical sources of information for communities affected by chemical contamination. Impacted residents and their healthcare providers often turn to federal and state agency webpages, fact sheets, and other documents to weigh exposure risks and interventions. This commentary briefly reviews scientific evidence concerning per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) for health outcomes that concern members of affected communities and that have compelling or substantial yet differing degree of scientific evidence. It then features official documents in their own language to illustrate communication gaps, as well as divergence from scientific evidence and from best health communication practice. We found official health communications mostly do not distinguish between the needs of heavily contaminated communities characterized by high body burdens and the larger population with ubiquitous but substantially smaller exposures. Most health communications do not distinguish levels of evidence for health outcomes and overemphasize uncertainty, dismissing legitimate reasons for concern in affected communities. Critically, few emphasize helpful approaches to interventions. We also provide examples that can be templates for improvement. Immediate action should be undertaken to review and improve official health communications intended to inform the public and health providers about the risks of PFAS exposure and guide community and medical decisions.

中文翻译：

---

官方健康沟通未能解决受 PFAS 污染的社区

环境卫生机构是受化学污染影响社区的重要信息来源。受影响的居民和他们的医疗保健提供者经常求助于联邦和州机构的网页、情况说明书和其他文件来权衡暴露风险和干预措施。本评论简要回顾了有关全氟烷基物质和多氟烷基物质 (PFAS) 对影响受影响社区成员的健康结果的科学证据，这些证据具有令人信服或实质性但程度不同的科学证据。然后，它以各自语言的官方文件为特色，以说明沟通差距，以及与科学证据和最佳健康沟通实践的分歧。我们发现，官方健康通讯大多没有区分以身体负担高为特征的重度污染社区的需求，以及无处不在但暴露量小得多的较大人群的需求。大多数健康交流不区分健康结果的证据水平，并过分强调不确定性，忽视受影响社区关注的正当理由。至关重要的是，很少有人强调有用的干预方法。我们还提供了可以作为改进模板的示例。应立即采取行动审查和改进官方健康通讯，旨在告知公众和健康提供者接触 PFAS 的风险并指导社区和医疗决策。