Adding PFAS To Toxin List Won’t Lead To Much

Imagine filling your glass from Trout Lake in North Bay, Ontario, trusting it’s clean—then learning PFAS, those “forever chemicals,” linger inside. Canada’s eyeing a toxic label for them, but don’t expect tighter drinking water rules anytime soon. It’s a strange dance of policy, pollution, and patience—let’s peek behind the curtain.

North Bay Mess and Why PFAS Matter

Canada’s gearing up to slap PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—onto its toxic substances list, a move announced by Environment and Climate Change Canada in early March. These “forever chemicals” don’t break down, popping up in gear like waterproof jackets and non-stick pans. But for North Bay, already steeped in PFAS, it’s no quick fix. For locals, it’s a label that promises more than it delivers.

PFAS aren’t just tough—they’re trouble. “They harm kidneys, the immune system,” says Cassie Barker from Environmental Defence, flagging their endocrine meddling at tiny doses. In North Bay, they’ve tainted wells and Trout Lake—drinking water for 52,000—thanks to decades of firefighting foam spills at Jack Garland Airport. It’s a quiet threat, seeping into everyday sips.

From the 1970s to the 1990s, the Department of National Defence ran firefighting drills with PFAS-laden foams at the airport. “The foams seeped into groundwater,” contaminating wells and the lake, a slow poison unleashed over years. Ontario’s interim PFAS guideline sits at 70 nanograms per litre—Trout Lake clocked 56 in 2023, close but not over. For residents, it’s a legacy they didn’t ask for.

Policy Promises and Limits

Adding PFAS to Canada’s toxic list under CEPA doesn’t flip a switch. “It doesn’t restrict or prohibit—it enables risk management,” Environment Canada says, hinting at future bans on PFAS in foams or products. Drinking water rules? That’s Health Canada’s turf, and this move won’t nudge them yet. It’s a step forward that leaves North Bay waiting.

Last summer, Health Canada tightened its PFAS goal to 30 nanograms per litre for 25 types—North Bay’s 56 overshoots it. Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment is “reviewing” this, mulling if it fits. “We’ll assess its use in Ontario,” they say, but no rush to enforce it. For locals, it’s a guideline they’re already failing—without action.

North Bay’s not sitting still—teaming with DND on a $20-million cleanup at the airport site. “We’ve removed 23,000 tonnes of contaminated soil,” says city spokesperson Gord Young, with adsorptive injections wrapping up by May. Next up: underground barriers in 2026 to trap the seepage. It’s a slow slog—fixing the past while the present lingers.

The Bigger Picture, Health at Risk

These chemicals aren’t just a North Bay problem—they’re in your raincoat, your takeout box. “They’re great at repelling water,” making them stars in cosmetics and packaging, Barker notes. But that staying power means they pile up—everywhere, not just Trout Lake. For Canadians, it’s a hidden guest in daily life.

Barker’s blunt—PFAS mess with your body’s basics. “Very small levels” hit kidneys, immunity, hormones, she warns, a slow burn of harm. In North Bay, where Trout Lake’s 56 nanograms per litre nears Ontario’s 70, it’s a number that whispers danger without screaming it. For families, it’s a worry they can’t rinse away.

Canada’s toxic list won’t clean your tap—reverse osmosis systems can, stripping PFAS for clean drinking water. Whole-home conditioners tackle every drop—sinks, showers—for real water safety. Take control while policy lags. It’s a personal patch for a public problem.

Home Filtration Works

Reverse osmosis systems cut through PFAS, filtering water via a tight membrane for clean drinking water. Whole-home conditioners cover all bases—sinks, showers, laundry—ditching those forever chemicals. Both sidestep slow rules, securing water safety now.