experts regret “a manipulation” of scientific discourse, which warns of the dangerousness of Pfas

Neurobiologist Terence Saulnier is one of the signatories of the column published this Thursday to warn of the danger of Pfas, also called “eternal pollutants”. He calls for grouping all Pfas into a single category, and not, “molecule by molecule”.

“We are not trying to offer an opinion, we are trying to establish scientific facts, and this scientific consensus is not listened to, or even manipulated”, worries Terence Saulnier, neurobiology engineer, interviewed Thursday April 4, on franceinfo. He signed, with other engineers, doctors and researchers, a column in the newspaper Le Monde to warn of the dangerousness of Pfas, also called “eternal pollutants”.

“What is the place of scientists on this subject?”asks Terence Saulnier, “is it up to scientists to say that Pfas are toxic, or is it up to manufacturers to impose this law?” he questions, while the deputies adopted this Thursday, April 4, a law aimed at restricting the manufacture and sale of products containing Pfas, these per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, very present in everyday objects, such as stoves. Tefal, food packaging or certain clothing. The law that was adopted, however, excludes kitchen utensils from its scope after a strong mobilization this week by manufacturers, and in particular the demonstration by employees of SEB, the manufacturer of Tefal stoves.

Put all Pfas in the same category

Today there are nearly a thousand different Pfas. Scientists are calling for them to be grouped into a single chemical class. Terence Saulnier considers that “if we think Pfas by Pfas, molecule by molecule, we will bog down a debate”. According to him, putting all the Pfas in one and the same category made it possible to treat the problem in one and the same way.

Terence Saulnier adds that there is still a lot of uncertainty and lack of knowledge about the very long-term effects on health. He also specifies that studies are generally carried out on animals, not humans. He concludes : “it seems strange to us to be able to authorize a molecule before being sure whether it is good for health or not”. For scientists, the more the problem will be addressed “from a global point of view, the more we can move forward”. The neurobiology engineer suggests that it is not necessarily a question of focusing only on Pfas, “but on all chemical pollution, on a European scale, including pollution by pesticides and endocrine disruptors, as a single major problem”.