PFAS are a group of some 4,700 compounds known as “forever pollutants” and which affect health and the environment
The European Commission could materialize the further massive restriction of toxic products of history, following the joint proposal launched by five EU countries (Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) before the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) to put an end to the use of perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (PFAS for its acronym in English). The proposal was submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) by these five countries in early January, but its details were released just a few days ago. ECHA’s expert committees are scheduled to carry out initial assessments in March, although in-depth scrutiny may take more than a year.
PFAS are a group of at least 4,700 different substances that are used in huge quantities throughout the planet and that have been associated with serious effects on human health and nature.. For the Hogar sin toxins initiative, which fights against this type of substance, this is a historical fact. “If nothing frustrates him, for the first time the EU could restrict hundreds or thousands of substances at once, in this specific case of PFAS, instead of banning substances one by one, as had been done up to now, which meant a colossal and fruitless fight against toxic substances,” says Carlos de Prada, head of this organization.
According to this expert, this new EU movement “could hinder one of the industry’s most damaging tricks, that of the so-called ‘unfortunate substitution’: by banning substances one at a time, it was very easy for the industry to substitute them for others.” of the same type but not yet regulated. Substances that in the end, all too often, have ended up having similar or worse effects than those they replaced.”
ubiquitous and dangerous substance
PFAS can be found in paper and cardboard food containers (for example, take-out containers, popcorn bags, pizza boxes, prepared cakes, etc.), kitchen utensils nonstick, textiles (for example, waterproof and/or greaseproof clothing and equipment, carpets, mattresses, etc.), cosmetics (for example, hair conditioner, foundation, sunscreen, etc.), electronics (for example, telephones intelligent), etc.
A 2021 report showed, for example, that PFAS are used in packaging in fast food and takeaway restaurants and supermarkets across Europe. It has been seen that they can be in hundreds of different products. One of the most concerning routes of exposure to PFAS is drinking water that has been contaminated by discharges from factories and other facilities.
However, De Prada warns that “it remains to be seen how this proposed restriction is materialized, because there is a risk, for example, that, taking advantage of a false door in the regulation, the use of many of them could continue to be allowed, alleging assumptions essential uses”.
Exposed for decades to come
as it aims Non-toxic homewhich collaborates with the European Environment Office (EEB) in the fight against toxic substances, PFAS have been dubbed “forever pollutants” (forever chemicals) due to its high persistence in organisms and the environment. For this reason, it is urgent to ban these substances, since even if they were banned today, We will continue to be exposed to them for decades and suffer their effects in the future, given their high persistence and bioaccumulative nature.”
Last October, 117 European civil society organizations released the Ban PFAS manifesto, calling on EU Member States and the Commission to urgently ban PFAS, in consumer products by 2025 and in all uses by 2030. For its part, the International Chemical Secretariat (Chemsec) has just included hundreds of PFAS on the list of dangerous substances Without List.
According to Dolores Romano, Head of Chemicals Policies at the European Environment Bureau (EEB), “We expect an ambitious restriction, which includes all substances in this dangerous group, including fluorinated polymers, such as Teflon. Only essential uses of PFAS should be allowed, that is, uses that are truly necessary to preserve health or safety, or that are critical to the functioning of society and for which there are no alternatives. We cannot allow the environment and the population to continue to be contaminated if there are safer alternatives.”
The false door of essential uses
The European Commission’s Chemical Strategy for Sustainability already provided for eliminating the use of these substances in the EU, unless their use is essential. “Precisely the latter” emphasizes Carlos de Prada, “is what generates the most concern, because leaves the door open for the resource to be abused for allegedly essential uses that are not really essential”.
As Chemsec, one of the European entities that monitors the issue, states, “regardless of what the chemical or manufacturing industry says, PFAS are not essential in cosmetics, kitchen utensils, furniture, clothing, dental floss, ski wax or, basically, in any other consumer product”, which is why they encourage the European authorities not to give in to pressure.
While we wait to see whether or not this massive restriction of thousands of PFASs materializes, the measures undertaken so far in relation to these substances are very limited. At the beginning of January, the concentration limits that the European Commission has established for four of these substances in meat, fish and eggs (where PFAS arrive due to environmental contamination, which in turn is incorporated into the food chain).
This measure, in Chemsec’s opinion, is far from solving the health problem posed by these chemical compounds. Non-toxic home He considers it positive that such limits have finally been set, but warns that “it has only been for four of the thousands of PFAS in circulation and it has taken too long despite the fact that scientific evidence exists for a long time.” He also expresses his doubts about “whether it is going to properly monitor whether or not it is complied with, and whether these concentrations are really safe.”
In 2020, the EFSA issued an opinion establishing what that agency considered a “safe” level of tolerable weekly intake (IST) of 4.4 ng/kg (nanograms per kilo) of body weight per week for the sum of the four aforementioned substances. , although he admitted that “the exposure of part of the European population to these substances is higher than the IST, so there is cause for concern.” The Agency recalls that this type of substance can cause Serious effects on the immune system, as well as development, liver, birth weight, and increased serum cholesterol. Other sources have associated substances of this type with problems such as cancers (for example, kidney and testicular cancer)infertility or thyroid disease. There is concern about the ability of many of these substances to affect the hormonal system (endocrine disruption), which means that they can have effects at very low concentrations.
ECHA press release: https://echa.europa.eu/en/-/echa-publishes-pfas-restriction-proposal
……..
Contact of the Environment section: [email protected]