RIVM still finds too much PFAS in Dutch blood
Measured levels are lower than in earlier research, but a broad European ban has not yet been finalised.
In 71 per cent of the Dutch adults studied, the amount of PFAS in the blood was above the health-based threshold. RIVM reports this following research among 967 people, but the institute stresses that the measurements do not predict whether someone will become ill.
RIVM found at least four PFAS compounds in almost all participants. PFOS was the most common, followed by PFOA. Compared with the previous Dutch blood study from 2016 and 2017, the levels are lower, but according to the institute exposure remains too high nationwide.
The study also examined areas around Chemours in Dordrecht and the Western Scheldt. In Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, participants were found to have higher levels of seven PFAS compounds. North of the Western Scheldt, some levels were up to twice as high as in the rest of the Netherlands. The study does not establish exactly what causes these regional differences.
RIVM warns that the health-based threshold should not be read as a direct dividing line between illness and health. Possible effects depend, among other things, on the amount and duration of exposure and on individual circumstances. The institute is still examining which health effects associated with higher blood levels are linked to PFAS in the literature.
The measurements are giving fresh impetus to the debate over a broad European ban. The Netherlands is one of five European countries that have submitted a proposal to ECHA to restrict a large number of PFAS uses. ECHA’s scientific committees support European measures, but advise exceptions where a direct ban would lead to major societal or safety problems.
A ban is therefore not yet a settled policy decision. The European Commission must process the advice and the socioeconomic consequences before proposing a definitive restriction. Some uses are already subject to restrictions, including rules on PFAS in food-contact packaging and firefighting foam.
RIVM is meanwhile calling for a broad approach covering all sources of exposure and for repeated measurements. The results are therefore both a health assessment and a policy question: how much use can be phased out, which applications are essential and who pays for the switch to alternatives?
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- RIVM found levels above the health-based threshold in 71 per cent of the adults studied.
- The levels are on average lower than in the earlier study.
- ECHA supports European measures, but with exceptions for certain uses.
Left
Arguments The results show that voluntary measures are insufficient. A broad ban with as few exceptions as possible protects health and the environment and forces companies to develop safe alternatives more quickly.
Values Prevention, public health and environmental justice.
Consequences The switch may be costly for industry and consumers, but it prevents long-term pollution and future clean-up costs.
Centre
Arguments A European approach is needed, but rules must assess what is essential for each use and where alternatives are available. Measurements, transition periods and enforcement must advance together.
Values Proportionality, scientific evidence and feasibility.
Consequences Targeted exceptions keep vital uses possible, but may make implementation more complex and slower.
Right
Arguments A total ban could affect production, innovation and strategic sectors. The government should focus primarily on tackling emissions, allow room for alternatives and prevent European companies from moving production to countries with less stringent rules.
Values Competitiveness, property rights and technological development.
Consequences A phased restriction limits economic shocks, but may keep exposure in place for longer.
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 measurement results, regional differences and warnings were directly checked with RIVM. The status of the European ban is correctly presented as a proposal and an ongoing regulatory process.
- confirmed RIVM studied 967 people. — RIVM publication on the new blood measurements. source
- confirmed In 71 per cent, the amount of PFAS was above the health-based threshold. — RIVM reports this for the adults studied. source
- confirmed The levels are lower than in the 2016 and 2017 study. — RIVM compares the new measurements with the previous study. source
- confirmed ECHA supports an EU-wide PFAS restriction with targeted exceptions. — ECHA publication of the scientific committees’ advice. source
- confirmed A broad European PFAS ban has not yet been definitively adopted. — The European Commission describes it as a proposed restriction; decision-making is still to come. source
Editor's note
The measurement results and uncertainties come from RIVM. European regulation is still under development; a broad ban has been proposed and scientifically assessed, but has not yet been definitively adopted.Sources
- Nieuwe metingen PFAS in bloed — RIVM
- ECHA supports PFAS restriction with targeted derogations — European Chemicals Agency
- PFAS pollution — Europese Commissie
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „pfas rivm”
- De Telegraaf — „pfas rivm”
- Trouw — „pfas rivm”