It might not be obvious to the eye or nose, but there are toxic chemicals in everyday products such as microwave popcorn bags,; rainwear, shampoo, carpets, electronic devices, paints, sealants, cleaning products and even dental floss. These chemicals are linked to a range of severe health issues, including cancer, infertility, birth defects and immune system disruptions along with environmental contamination.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) or “forever chemicals” are named because of their very long half-life, which means that they take a long time to break down in the environment and while doing so, bioaccumulate in organisms. Like most industrial products, these substances solve some problems while creating new ones. Some PFAS chemicals like “Teflon” provide resistance to heat, water, grease, and are the magic properties behind stain-resistant coatings on carpets and upholstery, and possibly your waterproof mascara.
As far back as the 1950s, industry research showed that PFAS chemicals were harmful and could build up in the blood of both animals and humans, though these reports were never made public. The film Dark Waters, starring Mark Ruffalo, tells the true story of a lawyer’s decades-long battle against the chemical giant DuPont which had contaminated the drinking water of a West Virginia town with one of the PFAS chemicals.
Yet despite some targeted bans in the EU, they are still being detected everywhere, including in the blood of some high level European policymakers who volunteered to be tested by the European Environmental Bureau last year. Up to seven PFAS were found in all tested individuals with five politicians exceeding current levels of concern, including former Vice-President of the Commission Frans Timmermans who described the chemicals as “legalised garbage”.
RM Block
While some of the worst-offending PFAS have been phased out, many familiar products still contain these chemicals, or are still present in the environment, especially water bodies. A US organisation called the Environmental Working Group maintains a searchable database of consumer products and ranks them with a hazard rating, but it is still the case that many products do not list ingredients. In any case, would we have the time (along with a PhD in chemistry and a magnifying glass to hand) to read and understand every label?
Because the chemicals themselves are in such widespread use in so many products, it is almost impossible to monitor PFAS, though the EPA is funding a four-year research project by the DCU Water Institute to investigate PFAS levels in drinking water. Indicative results have found elevated levels of PFAS at all 20 sites along the River Liffey. An expensive blood test can reveal their presence, though there is nothing much you can do about it when you get a positive result. The best we can do is avoid products whose labels promise “long lasting” properties or have the red flag presence of the word “fluoro” listed among the ingredients, and to seek out products that are made with only natural, non-hazardous ingredients.
One might expect chemicals to be banned once their toxicity comes to light. Unfortunately, that is not how chemicals regulation works. Each substance is assessed separately, when it would make more sense to ban the entire class of PFAS substances in one go. This in fact is what five countries (Denmark, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden) proposed back in 2023.
This week, the European Commission issued a proposal to treat industrial and consumer products separately under a new regulation to restrict use of PFAS that Brussels-based environmental NGOs have described as “a disaster”. The split means some consumer uses will be restricted but eight so-called “further sectors” will be permitted to use PFAS including printing, sealing, machinery, explosives, military, technical textiles, broader industrial uses and other medical applications.
Industry lobbying on this issue has followed the playbook of the fossil fuel and tobacco industry, by portraying the sector as responsible while arguing for opt-outs and leaving the health and environmental burden to fall on taxpayers. The NGO Corporate Europe Observatory reported in 2023 that 13 major PFAS producers and users were spending between €18.6 million and €21.1 million in lobbying the EU institutions per year, and between them have 72 lobbyists and 59 European Parliament passes. Given the looming decisions over the next year or so, that figure is likely to be much higher for 2025.
Meanwhile, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is evaluating the 2023 PFAS proposal, which requires a detailed assessment of the risks and socio-impact of a ban as well as considering potential exemptions for “essential uses”.
This means evaluating the risks of more than 10,000 substances across numerous industries. ECHA’s committees are likely to finalise their opinions by late 2025 or early 2026 which might mean that the final decision will fall during the Irish Presidency of the EU, beginning in July 2026. The question remains, will the Government join those member states that advocate a universal ban, or will they default to protecting those industries that profit from lax environmental rules?
Sadhbh O’Neill is an environmental and climate policy researcher. She is also a council member of the European Environmental Bureau
