The cost of cleaning up PFAS contamination in Europe can total €2 trillion over a 20-year period if emissions remain unrestricted, an investigation by the Forever Lobbying Project has found.
The year-long cross-border investigation involved 46 journalists and 18 researchers across 16 countries. It is based on 14,500 previously unpublished documents which are now available to the public.
PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—are used to make fluoropolymer coatings and products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water, from non-stick pans to firefighting foam. Taking centuries to decompose in the environment, this family of over 10,000 substances is known as ‘forever chemicals’.
Associations have been found between exposure to these forever chemicals and a wide range of health effects. To date, these include altered immune and thyroid function, liver disease, high cholesterol, increased risk of some cancers—including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers—insulin dysregulation, kidney disease, reduced fertility and reduced fetal growth.
PFAS enter the environment through emissions from plants that make or use the substances, or through the use of PFAS-containing products, such as fire-extinguishing foams, textile impregnation agents, lubricants or PFAS-containing products in the waste stream.
The investigation estimated a range of costs for PFAS remediation in soils, drinking water, wastewater, and landfills. It considered two scenarios. A ‘legacy’ scenario where emissions cease immediately and only legacy, long-chain PFAS such as PFOS and PFOA are remediated, and an ‘emerging’ scenario where emissions continue and remediation efforts include short-chain and ultra-short chain PFAS, like TFA, which are harder to deal with.
In the legacy scenario, costs are estimated at €95 billion over 20 years. In the emerging scenario, costs rise to around €2 trillion over the next 20 years.
The data and methodology used in the calculations are available on the investigation website.
“These calculations do not include a wide variety of unknown costs due to a lack of knowledge and data sources, meaning they are underestimated,” the authors warned. “Ongoing innovations have the potential to lower the remediation costs, but the most economical option is to lower emissions,” they added.
The investigation comes as the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) is considering a ban on 10,000 PFAS in the European Economic Area. The proposal, put forward by Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, received over 5,600 comments, from over 4,400 organisations, companies, and individuals during the public consultation period.
The Forever Lobbying Project has accused the plastics industry, amongst others, of lobbying against the ban. It said industry lobbyists ‘flooded' the ECHA consultation to allegedly ‘undermine, and perhaps kill, the proposal’.
The authors argue that most arguments presented in the public decision-making process are ‘misleading, fearmongering, exaggerated, or potentially dishonest’.
A team of academics collected 1,178 arguments against the ban and categorised them under one of three themes: scientific arguments, ‘no alternative’ arguments, and economic arguments.
A subsection of the investigation targets arguments by the ‘plastic lobby’ and Plastics Europe in particular. The investigators claim that ‘none of their seven dominant arguments is supported by the current science’, going on to argue that four make false claims, two are misleading, and labelling the key argument as ‘potentially dishonest’. Discussion is available here.
Reacting to the accusations, the Fluoropolymer Product Group (FPG) of Plastics Europe said that ‘some of the statements and opinions expressed in these reports misrepresent the facts, leading to unsubstantiated allegations’, without specifying which.
“The FPG stands by the integrity of its actions and remains committed to providing transparent, evidence-based information about fluoropolymers to all stakeholders,” the group’s statement reads.
“Throughout the ECHA process, we have contributed knowledge, data, and expertise as part of the public stakeholder consultation. This inclusive process is a cornerstone of effective and balanced regulation.”
“Fluoropolymers are uniquely positioned to support critical industries, including healthcare, renewable energy, advanced batteries, semiconductors, transportation, and defence. These materials play a vital role in Europe’s competitiveness, strategic autonomy, and transition to a green economy,” the FPG continued.
The argument that there no safe and effective alternatives to fluoropolymers, particularly within industries such as batteries, renewable energy, and semiconductors, has also been purposed by Mario Draghi’s report on European competitiveness. The former European Central Bank (ECB) president argued that a blank PFAS ban would distort the level playing field and create barriers and uncertainties for manufacturing investment.
On the other hand, the investigation argued that a large amount of PFAS can be easily replaced and that fluoropolymers in critical applications could be exempted until an alternative was found. Experts also argued that replacements would be identified relatively quickly given the potential rewards of having a monopoly over the market.