“Improved protection of drinking water against PFAS is good, but not enough.”

Since January 12, 2026, new and lower limits for the concentration of PFAS in drinking water have been in effect. PFAS, short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are extremely stable chemicals; the carbon and sulfonic acids often found in the environment (some of which are degradation products of other types of PFAS) have half-lives of over a hundred years. It could certainly be considered negligent that such persistent compounds have been introduced into the economic cycle and the global material cycle in massive quantities. As a result, we all carry PFAS in our bodies – and not just us humans, but also all wildlife species, especially carnivores. Some types can affect metabolism, hormone balance, reproduction, and the immune system; others are suspected of being carcinogenic.

In this respect, it’s a good thing that there are new, stricter limits for PFAS in drinking water supplies. They ensure the quality of drinking water and limit exposure to PFAS via this route. In recent years, the discovery that PFAS poses a health risk has fueled research activities aimed at improved removal of PFAS from water. This is also a positive development. The established adsorption methods are not very effective for shorter-chain PFAS, which is problematic: due to their greater water solubility, these shorter-chain substances are likely to be found in higher concentrations in water.

However, drinking water is only a major route of exposure for humans in exceptional cases. PFAS can be found in a wide variety of products today and thus enter the environment and reach us humans in many different ways. A recently published study

lists 325 different applications. In the past, higher levels in drinking water usually occurred when there was undetected local high PFAS contamination in groundwater: from production facilities, improper disposal, or in the wake of firefighting.

Other sources are generally more significant than drinking water, in particular animal-based foods (accumulation via the food chain) and the variety of products and substances we come in contact with in our everyday lives: food packaging, textiles, cosmetics, coatings on consumer goods, additives in lubricants, and much more; it also includes the dust in our homes, some of which we inhale. Workplace exposure can also be significant. It appears that PFAS, due to its attractive application properties, has slowly but surely “seeped” into more and more areas of the products we use.

Instead of just regulating drinking water, we should therefore go to the source and drastically reduce the future use of PFAS in terms of both its quantity and scope of application. This is also the aim of the so-called “restriction proposal”

put forward three years ago by several EU states, including Germany. Though political support for this proposal now appears to be crumbling, from a scientific standpoint there remains an urgent need to ban PFAS from the broad range of consumer goods and open systems that directly pollute the environment and harm humans.

In order to stimulate research and mobilize the innovative power needed to replace PFAS in its many areas of application and reduce its use to “essential” areas only, it will take broad regulation at the EU level and, if possible, beyond. Alternatively, considerable pressure from consumers could be a viable option.

This would be the right way forward in terms of sustainable chemistry and a sustainable, circular economy. In this respect, unfortunately, the new limits introduced in the Drinking Water Ordinance are not enough.