Tap water remains safe despite PFAS above advisory value
More than a third of people in the Netherlands receive more PFAS through drinking water than the RIVM advises, but the statutory limit is not exceeded.
According to a Greenpeace analysis, more than a third of the Dutch population lives in an area where the PFAS concentration in tap water exceeds the RIVM’s health-based advisory value. The RIVM and regional health services say at the same time that tap water remains safe to drink under current standards.
The analysis is based on data from Dutch drinking-water companies. Drinking water from surface water generally contains more PFAS than drinking water from groundwater. Concentrations vary by water abstraction area and therefore by place of residence.
The difference between the advisory value and the statutory limit is important. For combined exposure to certain PFAS, the RIVM advises a guidance value of 4.4 nanograms per litre, expressed in PFOA equivalents. A statutory European limit of 100 nanograms per litre also applies to twenty PFAS. According to the RIVM, Dutch drinking water meets that statutory limit.
The RIVM also distinguishes between drinking water and total exposure. The average intake through drinking water alone is below the health-based limit value, according to the institute. Average exposure through food and drinking water combined is above that value.
That does not mean PFAS are harmless. The RIVM points out that prolonged exposure to PFAS can affect, among other things, the immune system. The health-based assessment concerns population averages and does not indicate how much risk an individual person faces.
Earlier this month, the Human Environment and Transport Inspectorate also warned about TFA, a highly mobile and persistent PFAS associated, among other things, with the use of PFAS-containing crop protection products. The inspectorate calculated that at least 21,000 kilograms of TFA are released each year as a result.
The debate is therefore not only about whether people can drink tap water now, but also about the source of the pollution. Drinking-water companies and health organisations are calling for lower emissions, while governments must also determine how strictly new substances should be regulated and how quickly agriculture and industry can switch over.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- In parts of the Netherlands, PFAS levels in drinking water exceed the RIVM’s health-based advisory value.
- According to the RIVM, the statutory drinking-water limit is not exceeded.
- The RIVM advises people to continue drinking tap water.
Left
Arguments The government must tackle PFAS at source as quickly as possible and make producers and users pay for pollution. The fact that water may legally be supplied is no reason to ignore a stricter health-based guidance value.
Values Precaution, public health and protection of future generations.
Consequences Stricter bans could increase costs for agriculture, industry and water treatment, but would limit prolonged exposure.
Centre
Arguments The current message must hold on to both truths: tap water meets the statutory limit, while further reductions in PFAS are desirable. Policymakers must align standards, monitoring and technical feasibility.
Values Proportionality, reliable information and workable policy.
Consequences A phased approach could deliver health gains without unnecessary panic or sudden problems with the drinking-water supply.
Right
Arguments The government must continue to distinguish clearly between an advisory value and a statutory limit. New rules must demonstrably reduce risks and must not lead to costly measures without proven additional health benefits.
Values Scientific substantiation, affordability and predictable regulation.
Consequences Bans introduced too quickly could raise prices and burden businesses; delaying action could instead lead to higher treatment costs and greater future risks.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The health-based nuance and the differences between the advisory value and the statutory limit were checked directly with the RIVM. The figures on TFA come from a separate ILT report and were not used to provide individual health advice.
- confirmed More than a third of people in the Netherlands live in an area where PFAS in tap water exceeds the RIVM advisory value. — Reported by the GGD on the basis of Greenpeace research. source
- confirmed The RIVM advises a guidance value of 4.4 nanograms per litre in PFOA equivalents. — Included on the RIVM page about PFAS in drinking water. source
- confirmed The statutory limit for twenty PFAS is 100 nanograms per litre, and Dutch drinking water meets that limit. — Reported by the RIVM. source
- confirmed Average exposure through drinking water alone is below the health-based limit value, while exposure through food and drinking water combined is above it. — Reported by the RIVM. source
- confirmed PFAS-containing crop protection products cause the release of at least 21,000 kilograms of TFA annually, according to the ILT. — Calculation from the ILT notice of 11 September 2026. source
Editor's note
The exceedance of the RIVM advisory value, the statutory limit and the advice to continue drinking tap water have been checked against RIVM and GGD sources. The Greenpeace analysis itself is described here via the GGD; individual health risks cannot be inferred from the figures.Sources
- PFAS in Drinkwater — RIVM
- PFAS in drinkwater — GGD Zaanstreek-Waterland
- PFAS groot risico voor toekomst drinkwater — Inspectie Leefomgeving en Transport
More on this in Dutch media
- NRC — „pfas drinkwater”
- NU.nl — „pfas drinkwater”
- De Telegraaf — „pfas drinkwater”