The General Inspectorate for the Environment and Sustainable Development advocates the banning of these pollutants which contaminate water and soil.
There is an urgent need to act against PFAS, these eternal pollutants that contaminate European water bodies. A report by the General Inspectorate for the Environment and Sustainable Development (IGEDD), published on Friday April 14, recommends that the government take “without delay” measures to deal with these pollutants, with a view to improving knowledge and controls and banning them. The text recommends “to initiate the most urgent risk management actions without delay”.
>> Pollution: in the suburbs of Lyon, the town of Pierre-Bénite “seriously contaminated” by “eternal” pollutants released by the Arkema factory
Franceinfo takes stock of this worrying pollution.
1 What are PFAS?
The acronym PFAS (pronounced “pifasse”) refers to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a family of synthetic organofluorine compounds (more than 4,700 molecules), developed since the 1940s. Endowed with non-stick and waterproof properties, they are massively present in everyday life: Teflon stoves, food packaging, textiles, automobiles… Almost indestructible, they are described by some experts as “the greatest chemical threat of the 21st century”but deemed in part unavoidable by the industry.
2 What are their effects on health?
For the IGEDD, “knowledge of the health risks associated with the various PFASs is insufficient, or even absent (…) but harmful and toxic effects on human metabolism have been observed for several PFASs and their carcinogenicity is suspected”. Contamination occurs in particular through the consumption of water and food and the inhalation of air and its dust. The list of suspected effects is long: diabetes, obesity, immune, haematological, neurological effects, liver necrosis, cancers…
3 What does the report recommend?
Faced with this “disturbing observation”the first recommendation is therefore to“apply the precautionary principle” and to ask the French State “to work for a Reach restriction [en référence à la réglementation européenne destinée à préserver la santé humaine et l’environnement des produits chimiques] leading to a ban on the use, production and import of all PFAS”says the report.
The European Chemicals Agency (Echa) published on February 7 the proposal of Germany, Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway (as a member of theEuropean Economic Area) to ban PFAS in the EU, which it will assess before submitting a recommendation to Brussels and the Twenty-Seven, for implementation after 2026. This approach has been supported by several States, including France.
The IGEDD also recommends the “substitution of PFAS whenever possible by less harmful substances”to better inform the public about the risks and the presence of these pollutants in the various products and to initiate a research program to improve knowledge.
4 What is the situation in France?
Currently, “France does not regulate any PFAS in the control of raw water and water intended for human consumption” and the “French regulations on industrial emissions still regulate PFAS emissions too little”, notes the report, adding that similar gaps exist for air and soil. The report shows marked contamination of certain groundwater (Alsace, Rhone region, Seine valley, Moselle, Mediterranean, etc.), adding that that of surface water “is more general”.
In December 2022, the government published a “action plan” for better “evaluate the effects of PFAS and thus limit them more strictly” while emphasizing that actions must be taken at European level. The ecologist deputy Nicolas Thierry, who considers that this plan is a “diversion”filed a bill on Thursday calling for a ban on PFAS from 2025 when there is an alternative, before a total ban in 2027.
The IGEDD report, blocked according to him and the NGO Robin des Bois for months by the government, is “as worrying as we suspected”he reacted to AFP. “This is the start of a long fight against a health scandal of unprecedented magnitude. The problem has been known for twenty years and the inaction of the State and industrialists is culpable” while “Alternatives to PFAS already exist”. “While pollution is widespread (…) the inaction of the State is total” and his plan “is not up to the stakes”for his part castigates the Future Generations association, considering that it is “urgent to adapt surveillance”, especially on food and water. “Waiting for European standards, knowing the slowness of the process (…), is insufficient”she concludes.