Pfas, time for a crackdown arrives. In October 2022, the European Commission proposed adding more than 20 substances, including 24 Pfas, to the list of pollutants to be monitored in water. The EU Council finally approved the list on Feb. 17; now all that is missing is a vote by the European Parliament (scheduled for March 9-12). Barring any surprises, this will be a formality given the understanding already reached with member countries.
The new directive amends the Water Framework Directive, the Groundwater Directive and the Environmental Quality Standards Directive and expands the list of hazardous substances subject to standards for monitoring and reducing release to surface and groundwater. Drugs, pesticides, bisphenols and Pfas, which are known to persist in the environment and organisms, will also enter the list. Currently, EU countries, based on the 2018 directive, are not required to monitor Pfas in water. Under the new directive they will have to comply by 2039, while for surface waters with the revised standards the deadline is 2033. But perhaps implementing the new directive is not the best strategy. Perhaps a (seemingly) more radical but less costly choice is needed: ban them.
The Pfas risk
To evaluate, it is good to know the pitfalls of Pfas. “These man-made chemical compounds,” writes the Mario Negri Research Institute, “are a large family, are used extensively in industry due to their special water-repellent and oleophobic characteristics. The term ‘PFAS’ comes from the English Per- and Poly-Fluoroalkyl Substances, and indicates molecules characterized by the presence of very strong chemical bonds between carbon and fluorine atoms, which give them great resistance to natural degradation. These synthetic substances emerged in the 1940s in response to industrial needs for materials that were extremely stable and resistant to chemical, thermal and physical agents. Today, more than 4,000 different compounds have been identified and are widely used in numerous everyday items such as nonstick cookware, waterproof fabrics and footwear, carpets and upholstery, some food packaging, and even pesticides.”
“Perfluoroalkyl substances (Pfas),” Mario Negri continues, “pose a risk to humans and the environment because of their particular chemical structure, which makes them very difficult to degrade naturally. When they are not properly controlled during industrial processes, Pfas can in fact easily contaminate soil and groundwater, spreading into the environment even at great distances from their source of emission. The most worrying characteristic of these substances is their remarkable persistence, which allows them to gradually accumulate in living organisms, including plants. From here, passage to food becomes almost inevitable, increasing the real risk of these substances entering the food chain and being absorbed into human blood, with health effects still the focus of much scientific research. Recent studies, conducted both experimentally and epidemiologically, have confirmed that continued exposure to perfluoroalkyl substances can lead to serious human health consequences. In particular, the European Food Safety Authority (Efsa) has clearly indicated a significant increase in blood cholesterol levels associated with the presence of Pfas in the human body. In addition, further research has shown possible alterations in the function of vital organs such as the liver and thyroid, impairment of the immune system with reduction of the body’s natural defenses, negative effects on the reproductive system with risks to fertility, and even correlations with an increase in the incidence of certain types of neoplasms. Pfas are not only toxic and persistent substances, they are also highly mobile, meaning that once released into the environment, they can quickly spread, reaching vast geographical areas and causing a risk of widespread contamination. It is this particular combination of properties-mobility, persistence and toxicity-that makes Pfas so dangerous to both human health and ecosystem biodiversity.”
What to do. Better to ban them altogether
At the end of January, the European Commission published a comprehensive and wide-ranging report assessing the real costs of Pfas pollution in the European Economic Area (which includes the EU along with Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) from now until 2050.
The emerging results show even more clearly than expected that a total ban on the production and use of these substances, known as “forever chemicals” because of their ability to persist in the environment and living organisms, would be the most effective option. Not only in terms of protecting public health and quality of life, but also economically, due to the savings that would result from reduced health care costs, environmental remediation and ecosystem damage.
Pfas (perfluoroalkyl substances) comprise thousands of synthetic chemical compounds with nonstick and water-repellent properties that have been used since the 1970s in numerous products: cookware, textiles and footwear, cosmetics, packaging–including food packaging–fire-fighting foams, curtains, carpets, paints and floor waxes.
As of Jan. 12, an EU-wide requirement for member states to monitor the presence of PFASs in drinking water went into effect, meeting new limits set at 0.5 mg/l for the sum total of substances and 0.1 mg/l for a group of 20 Pfas considered most hazardous. The European Chemicals Agency (Echa) has also already banned or restricted four particularly harmful compounds (Pfoa, Pfos, Pfhxs and Pfna) and is considering a proposal to extend the ban across the board. The new report provides a solid scientific basis for moving in this direction, despite opposition from part of industry.
The study analyzes four different scenarios, considering both health costs and costs related to soil remediation, drinking water and surface water management, and wastewater treatment. It is worth noting that health costs are underestimated because they are calculated only on the four already banned Pfas.
The conclusions are stark. If no new regulations were introduced, total costs would reach 440 billion euros by 2050 (Scenario 1).
Strict implementation of drinking water regulations would change the picture little, with 450 billion euros in costs (Scenario 2). In both cases, emissions would increase up to 2.5 times from 2020 and the population exposed would grow from 14 percent in 2024 to 17 percent in 2050, while contaminated sites would increase from 11,500 to about 14,200.
Implementation of updated surface water quality standards would result in much higher costs of 1.7 trillion euros (Scenario 3). Despite a significant decrease in health impacts, expenditures would grow primarily on remediation and continued wastewater treatment, without addressing emission reductions at the source.
Scenario 4, which calls for a total ban on Pfas production and use, is by far the most cost-effective solution: about 330 billion over the assessment period. This is 110 billion less than the no-action scenario, 120 billion less than the scenario related to water regulations, and more than 1,370 billion less than adopting the new surface water standards.
The savings come from the progressive reduction of emissions and, consequently, health costs (despite a physiological delay due to the persistence of Pfas in the human body). In addition, cleanup costs would no longer increase over time and no further water treatment would be required. Costs due to ecosystem degradation would also decrease. So why not do it?
