Manufacturers offer little clarity on PFAS
The Consumers’ Association received barely any answers from most of the 34 companies surveyed about their use of the substances.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
Most of the 34 companies surveyed provide consumers with no clear information about PFAS in their products. This is according to the Consumers’ Association, following research into websites and responses from manufacturers and sellers.
According to the Consumers’ Association, the websites of the companies surveyed contain little or no comprehensible information about the presence of PFAS. The organisation also asked the companies about their policies on the substances. Most companies, the association says, barely responded or failed to provide a clear answer.
PFAS is the collective name for a large group of chemical substances that can, among other things, have water-, grease- and dirt-repellent properties. They are used in various product categories. These properties make the substances technically useful, but some PFAS remain in the environment for a long time and can accumulate.
The Consumers’ Association says this makes it difficult for consumers to assess whether a product contains PFAS and whether an alternative is available. According to the organisation, an alternative without PFAS exists for all the product categories surveyed. The association is therefore calling for a broad ban on the use of PFAS in consumer products.
The results are not a measurement of the amount of PFAS to which consumers are exposed. The research focused mainly on transparency and companies’ responses. Nor does the absence of information on a website automatically mean that a product contains PFAS; it means that consumers could not easily find that information.
The RIVM says that some PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS, may no longer be used in consumer products in the European Union. Restrictions apply to other uses, or European rules are being prepared. The Netherlands has submitted a proposal for broader restrictions together with other European countries.
For companies, the issue may have consequences for product development, labelling, procurement and liability. For consumers, it is particularly important that the research does not provide individual health advice. The presence of a substance in a product does not in itself indicate how much someone is exposed to or what health risk that entails.
Also show where in Europe and in the world
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The Consumers’ Association examined information about PFAS at 34 companies.
- The organisation says that most companies provided little clarity.
- European restrictions already exist for some PFAS.
Left
Arguments Companies should apply the precautionary principle and actively inform consumers. If safe alternatives exist, the use of PFAS in consumer products should be phased out.
Values Public health, environmental protection and producer responsibility.
Consequences A broad ban could limit risks and pollution, but would require oversight and support for companies needing to adapt their production.
Centre
Arguments Rules should be based on use, exposure and risk. Transparency can be improved quickly, while exceptions can remain possible for uses for which no adequate alternative yet exists.
Values Proportionality, scientific evidence and practicability.
Consequences Targeted restrictions can address the riskiest uses without unnecessarily disrupting supply chains.
Right
Arguments A blanket ban could make products more expensive and hinder innovation. Companies should primarily demonstrate that uses are safe, and consumers should be able to choose.
Values Freedom of choice, innovation and limited regulatory burdens.
Consequences Giving companies more leeway can limit costs, but places greater responsibility on consumers and regulators.
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 research findings are attributed to the Consumers’ Association and are not presented more broadly than the source allows. The text avoids individual medical conclusions and distinguishes between transparency, presence and exposure.
- confirmed The Consumers’ Association examined 34 companies. — The number appears in the Consumers’ Association’s news report. source
- confirmed Most companies barely responded. — The Consumers’ Association describes this as a result of the research. source
- confirmed PFOS, PFOA and PFHxS may no longer be used in consumer products in the EU. — RIVM overview of existing restrictions. source
Editor's note
The findings concerning the 34 companies come from research by the Consumers’ Association. The RIVM source provides the regulatory and health context; no independent verification of all individual product claims was found.Sources
- Fabrikanten zwijgen over PFAS in producten — Consumentenbond
- PFAS in consumentenproducten — RIVM
More on this in Dutch media
- NU.nl — „pfas consumenten”
- De Telegraaf — „pfas consumenten”
- AD — „pfas consumenten”