Home Ā» There are good reasons for a PFAS ban

There are good reasons for a PFAS ban

by admin
There are good reasons for a PFAS ban

In Greek mythology, the water snake Hydra was a many-headed monster. If it lost a head, two new ones quickly grew back. Her breath poisoned fields, waters, and those who came too close. She was considered immortal until Herakles managed to kill her. Environmental researchers and physicians have now identified a kind of modern-day hydra: PFAS, the group of per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances.

The artificial substances have spread practically everywhere in the environment, some are poisonous – and even if the group of substances does not grow new heads, new variants are constantly being added. Once a fluorochemical is regulated for proven health risks, manufacturers will come up with a variety of new variants, often chemically similar, that may not necessarily be less hazardous. More than 10,000 different PFAS are now known.


Andrea Hoferichter is an editor at MIT Technology Review. She is a chemist and writes articles in the fields of environment, medicine and biotechnology.

The substances are found in a wide variety of products: coated pans, sofa fabrics, shoe spray, sealing tape or fire-extinguishing foam – right through to lithium-ion batteries, car air-conditioning systems and medical implants. PFAS, which can be released during production or disposal, are considered to be particularly problematic. The EU chemicals regulation REACH requires safety data for previously untested PFAS, but only for larger production or import quantities. Harmful side effects often only come to light when the substances have long been in circulation. The EU Commission now wants to pull the ripcord and ban the entire group of substances. She presented a first proposal at the beginning of February.

Meanwhile, two German medical technology associations are warning of a general PFAS ban. You have sent a letter to the Federal Ministry of Health and warn of the “devastating effects” of the planned ban. Among other things, they argue that PFAS in medical technology are so-called “high-performance materials” that made advances in medical technology possible in the first place.

And yet: There are good reasons for the group ban. Not every PFAS variant has to be toxic. However, some are known to have health consequences and weaken the immune system, disrupt lipid metabolism, affect fertility and the development of children. Liver and kidney damage as well as testicular cancer are also associated with the substances. Independently testing each one for health risks would take decades or even centuries and require tens of thousands of animal experiments.

In addition, like the Hydra in mythology, PFAS are virtually immortal. Neither sunlight nor microbes can harm them. If they get into the environment, they stay for at least decades. It is not for nothing that they are also called eternity chemicals. Retrieval options are extremely difficult.

The chemicals have long since spread all over the world, as far as Antarctica and the Tibetan highlands. In many places, they are found in soil, water and in the rain in doses that in some cases significantly exceed the harmlessness threshold. The substances are also increasingly found in products for which they are not actually used, such as in orange juice, toilet paper and tampons. Years ago, researchers detected PFAS in fish and polar bears ā€“ and also in the blood of most people. Children and young people are particularly affected. According to the Federal Environment Agency, every fifth young person in Germany is so heavily exposed to the now banned PFAS variant PFOA that damage to health cannot be ruled out.

In view of such findings, the advertising video of a PFAS manufacturer seems cynical: a young man with the look of a son-in-law in a clean, catalog-ready apartment. The breakfast fried egg slides out of the coated pan, the blue business shirt practically irons itself and he, of course, drives an electric SUV with a lithium-ion battery. The producer argues that PFAS are indispensable, and industry associations agree: The PFAS ban threatens prosperity, jobs, innovative strength and the achievement of climate protection goals, it is said again and again.

At least the latter is not true. Fuel cells and electrolytic cells for the production of “green” hydrogen work perfectly well without membranes containing PFAS, even if a changeover may take a little time. In any case, a Canadian start-up has already presented alternatives and at the same time shows that innovative strength can also develop without fluorochemicals.

The same applies to sodium-ion solid-state batteries, which are currently being researched at full speed and which not only do without fluorochemicals, but also without the ecologically and ethically problematic metals lithium and cobalt. Heat pumps without fluorinated gases are already on the market and everyday products such as pans containing PFAS, weather jackets, skin creams or chain grease can be replaced immediately anyway. Alternative products have been around for a long time.

A PFAS ban is necessary not least for economic reasons. The Nordic Council cites Europe-wide health costs of between 52 and 84 billion euros per year. The management of large areas of contaminated soil, groundwater and drinking water, for example through factory emissions or the use of appropriate extinguishing foams, is not yet included. Nor that the PFAS levels in the environment will continue to rise. The Netherlands, for example, recently held the US company 3M liable for drinking water in the Schelde river that was contaminated with PFAS. 3M is said to have discharged chemical waste from its chemical plant in Belgium into the Scheldt, some of which continues to flow into the Netherlands.

Of course, it is important that the flood of chemicals is stopped not only in Europe. The pollution is global. It remains to be seen which regulations will ultimately take effect in the fight against the modern Hydra PFAS and also what the EU ban will look like. In the first proposal, the EU Commission envisages an immediate ban for many everyday products and longer transition periods of up to 13.5 years for the semiconductor industry and medical implants, for example. Industry associations want to continue to fight back. Experts expect a final result in 2025 at the earliest.




(Older brother)

To home page

See also  The Boring Company, between roads and flamethrowers: where are we?

You may also like

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More

Privacy & Cookies Policy