The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) has released updated Eat Safe Fish guidance that is more protective of human health than previous iterations. The Guides help Michigan residents understand which types of fish are safe to eat from water bodies all over the state. The updated guides include significant changes for the Huron River and popular fishing lakes throughout the watershed.
There are too many updates to lakes and locations in the watershed to detail . Read the Southeast Michigan guide to get information on different fishing spots.
The new guidance is a major step forward in protecting public health. Revisions were based on substantially improved scientific understanding of the toxicity of PFOS (perfluorooctane sulfonate), a specific PFAS compound, and how it builds up in different fish species over time.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) don’t break down in the environment. They accumulate in the organs and bloodstream of fish, wildlife, and humans, and are associated with several serious health risks. In southeast Michigan, they’ve primarily come from industrial pollution associated with automotive manufacturing, but their use is pervasive across industries and consumer goods.
In 2018, a Do Not Eat Fish advisory was placed on the main stem of the Huron River for all fish below Norton Creek near Wixom. The guidance was later relaxed for the stretch of river below I-275. There have been lesser changes to the Eat Safe Fish Guides since 2018, but the changes in the 2025 guide are significant.
The updated guidelines make Michigan’s “Do Not Eat” level for PFOS more protective, lowering the threshold from 300 parts per billion (ppb) to 50 ppb. That lower threshold means the number of waterbodies statewide with a Do Not Eat advisory has increased from 92 to 188. Beyond that, the updated guidance also suggests eating fewer fish from many more lakes and streams due to PFAS. There are many popular fishing lakes in the Huron River watershed that now have additional PFAS guidance. Some examples are Whitmore Lake, Bruin Lake, and Portage Creek from the Huron River to the Hi-Land Lake Dam.
The science has also shown us that some fish bioaccumulate PFAS faster than others. While Do Not Eat advisories are more widespread in the watershed and the state, there are cases where MDHHS suggests it’s okay to eat some fish species at a low frequency from a PFAS-contaminated water body even if there is a Do Not Eat advisory for other species.
There are two main factors driving changes in the MDHHS Eat Safe Fish PFAS guidance:
1) we now know PFAS are far more toxic than previously thought, and
2) we now understand that people are exposed to PFAS in ways that were not fully accounted for—through processed food, the clothing we wear, the sunscreen we use, our nonstick cooking pans, and so on. That means the relative amount of PFAS we might ingest from fish is a smaller wedge of the toxic PFAS pie than previously assumed. Balancing that improved understanding against the nutritional value offered from fish is what led to the new guidance levels.
Some Editorial Perspective
I am often asked some version of the question: “Would you eat fish from this river or that lake?”
My simple answer is that I think people should avoid eating inland-caught fish, from Michigan or elsewhere. That is what I tell my friends and family. But to fully answer that question, I feel I need to offer some context.
The science underlying the MDHHS Eat Safe Fish guides is solid. The guidance is far improved from what it was before, and ever better when you consider that not too long ago there was no guidance for consuming PFAS in fish. For anglers that feel they must eat the fish they catch, the guides are the best available resource to understand risks and protect themselves.
But I put myself in a different category. I do not need to eat—and don’t feel compelled to eat—inland caught fish. I think most of the population falls into this same category. For people like me and my family, I tell people to avoid eating inland caught fish as much as possible.
There are several reasons why. Medical science around PFAS exposure is still rapidly developing. New health effects are still being identified and understood. Emerging research is showing us that many PFAS have overlapping and exacerbating health effects with other PFAS. All the while, we know PFAS manufacturers are actively producing new, unregulated PFAS variants to replace now-regulated PFAS types, but there is growing evidence that these replacements are often as toxic as the chemical they are replacing.
It’s likely we still don’t understand just how harmful PFAS are. We certainly don’t understand the combined effect of being exposed to many PFAS at once, or how different PFAS types bioaccumulate in fish.
The Real Solution is Banning PFAS
PFAS pollution is now understood to be a global problem. It will only continue to get worse and more harmful until we stop using PFAS. We need to ban PFAS in non-essential applications. We need to hold manufacturers and industrial users accountable for the risk they are creating. Call your state legislators and tell them you support banning PFAS. Tell them you support stronger, more protective polluter pay laws.
Learn more about Polluter Pay Laws in Michigan