RIVM working on new picture of PFAS in blood
Public RIVM information does not yet confirm that a ban has already led to lower blood levels.
A new report says PFAS levels in the blood of people in the Netherlands have fallen and sees this as an initial indication that bans are having an effect. However, the publicly available RIVM pages do not yet set out this new finding in detail, meaning the conclusion cannot currently be independently verified.
In July 2025, RIVM published the first nationwide measurement, based on 1,500 blood samples from 2016 and 2017. In almost the entire population studied, the total amount of four PFAS substances was above the health-based limit of 6.9 nanograms per millilitre. This was a picture of past exposure, not of the situation in 2026.
The institute says it is examining new samples to obtain a more up-to-date picture. The public research information says that results from additional research are expected in 2026, but at the time this edition was published it provided no dataset, table or report containing recent blood levels.
That distinction matters. PFAS break down very slowly and can gradually leave the body. A lower level in a later sample may be consistent with reduced exposure, but does not in itself prove that a specific measure caused the decrease. Differences between the groups, ages and samples studied may also play a role.
RIVM also warns that biomonitoring cannot establish the source of the PFAS. The substances can enter the body through food, drinking water, air and products. A comparison between old and new samples may therefore show a trend, but cannot on its own establish the effect of a European or national ban.
Some restrictions have already been introduced. PFOS was banned in Europe in 2008 and PFOA has been heavily restricted since 2020. The Netherlands is also working with other European countries on a proposal for a broad PFAS restriction, but that process is not a general ban that is already fully in force.
After the earlier RIVM study, GGD Zeeland stressed that the samples from 2016 and 2017 said nothing about current exposure. Until the new RIVM report and the underlying figures are made public, the safe conclusion is therefore limited: a more up-to-date picture is expected, but the effect of bans cannot yet be firmly established.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- RIVM previously examined 1,500 blood samples from 2016 and 2017.
- In almost the entire population, PFAS levels were above the health-based limit.
- RIVM says that biomonitoring cannot identify a source of exposure.
- A follow-up study using more recent samples is expected in 2026.
Left
Arguments The uncertainty is no reason to wait before introducing a broad restriction on PFAS. Because the substances are persistent and exposure is difficult to avoid individually, producers and governments should follow the precautionary principle.
Values Public health, precaution and the principle that polluters bear responsibility.
Consequences Faster phase-out and stricter emissions rules, with higher adjustment costs for industry and potentially more expensive products.
Centre
Arguments Policy should be based on repeatable measurements and a European assessment for each application. A phased approach involving monitoring, exemptions for essential uses and investment in alternatives avoids both delay and unenforceable bans.
Values Scientific rigour, proportionality and feasibility.
Consequences Slower decision-making, but more scope for reliable impact measurement and viable replacement.
Right
Arguments The government should first demonstrate which uses and exposure routes pose the greatest risk. A blanket ban could harm innovation, production and affordability if safe alternatives are not yet available.
Values Property, economic freedom, affordability and evidence for government intervention.
Consequences More targeted rules and lower direct costs, but potentially longer-lasting exposure to substances that are difficult to break down.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · 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 background on the earlier RIVM study and the planned follow-up study is well documented. The current claim that bans have already led to lower blood levels could not be confirmed with a public RIVM report.
- confirmed The earlier RIVM study used 1,500 blood samples from 2016 and 2017. — This is stated on the RIVM page about PFAS in humans. source
- confirmed In almost the entire population, PFAS levels were above the health-based limit. — RIVM describes this in the nationwide study. source
- confirmed The health-based limit is 6.9 nanograms per millilitre for four PFAS combined. — RIVM cites this EFSA-derived limit. source
- confirmed RIVM cannot establish the sources of PFAS through biomonitoring. — RIVM explicitly states that biomonitoring cannot identify sources. source
- uncertain A ban has demonstrably already led to lower blood levels. — The public RIVM pages contain no recent figures or reporting to support this. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: RIVM study provides initial indication that ban is workingNow: Public RIVM information does not yet confirm that a ban has already led to lower blood levels (The current measurement results and underlying figures are not publicly available in the sources consulted.)
Editor's note
The public RIVM material confirms the earlier study and states that more recent results are expected in 2026. No public report containing the decrease mentioned in the new reporting was found.Sources
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „pfas rivm”
- AD — „pfas rivm”
- de Volkskrant — „pfas rivm”