Without realising it, we are crossing a new planetary boundary. A small human-made molecule is increasingly polluting our drinking water on a global scale. It has been detected in tap water, groundwater and even in some bottled and mineral waters. We drink it daily and give it to our children. Its concentrations are rising and recent studies indicate that it may be toxic to reproduction. It is nearly indestructible and difficult to remove, so it will be there for generations to come. The problem is called ‘TFA’ or trifluoroacetic acid and PFAS pesticides are an important source.
The fact that we’re allowing this to happen demonstrates a monumental failure of the system we use to assess the safety of these chemicals. It did not predict the problem coming and allowed this pollutant to build up in our water resources. Now scientists call to designate the smallest PFAS as a planetary boundary threat: a problem that has to be addressed urgently. All we can do is reduce the input as soon as possible and “address pollution at source”. That is why we advocate for an immediate ban of all PFAS pesticides. In this article, we will give an overview of recent alarming measurements and scientific findings that emphasise the urgency.
Humanity is a slow learner. After many years of poisoning our environmental resources and ecosystems, we banned the use of DDT and other very toxic and persistent organochlorines. But we did not fundamentally change the system to assess the safety of chemicals. This allowed the chemical industry to produce and release into the environment a new generation of harmful ‘forever chemicals’: the organofluorines. PFAS are everywhere and most of us only found out recently that they are extremely toxic and very persistent.
The heavy fluorinated PFAS: extremely toxic
The most notorious PFAS are the heavily fluorinated chemicals like PFOS and PFOA. With eight carbon atoms bonded almost completely to fluorine, these compounds are extremely strong and stable. They hardly break down in nature, hence the name “forever chemicals”. For a long time, industry labelled them inert and therefore harmless, like the anti-stick layer in our frying pan or the PFOS coating on our clothing and shoes. We now know that many of these substances are extremely toxic. They disturb the function of our hormones and immune system and can lead to a variety of serious diseases, including cancer. Producers like DuPont - now Chemours - already knew this 40 years ago. [1] Attempts by the chemical industry to solve the toxicity problem by using PFAS with shorter carbon chains led to the use of molecules with 6 and later 4 carbon atoms. However, this did not solve the problem. These PFAS are also very toxic.
New problem: the extremely soluble and mobile small PFAS called TFA
Very recently we have learned about an additional and maybe even bigger problem. It is one of the smallest PFAS and is the breakdown product of larger PFAS chemicals. These ultra-short chain PFAS were for a long time considered as harmless because, unlike their larger relatives, they are very water soluble and therefore quickly enter but also leave the body. The unfounded assumption that TFA would have no effect on health is a serious mistake with huge consequences. This spin by the chemical industry convinced the European Commission to label TFA as a ‘non-relevant metabolite’ in 2002. The result of this disastrous decision is that TFA has not been measured or monitored for many years. This allowed it to build up in our waters and bodies, pollute the groundwater and even reach the deeper layers where some of our mineral waters come from. We still don’t know much about the effects on health and biodiversity, because until recently it was hardly studied.
However, recent studies indicate that TFA is especially problematic. It can accumulate in blood and plant tissues and is probably toxic to the liver and to reproduction. The German Chemical Agency has proposed to classify TFA as Toxic to Reproduction. [2] Not all toxicologists agree yet on its effects on our health. It might be less toxic than the extremely toxic large PFAS mentioned above, but it still is very toxic and we are exposed to it on a daily basis at much higher levels.
Now I’m really depressed: Prozac is a PFAS
PFAS pesticides are the main generators of TFA. There are 35 PFAS pesticide active substances allowed in the EU and most of them are also used in the UK and even more are allowed in the US, China and other countries. They are part of hundreds of different pesticide products and are deliberately sprayed on fields and food. Most of them eventually break down to TFA.
Other chemicals like some F-gases break down in the atmosphere and generate TFA in the rain. This is another serious problem that needs to be addressed. Even some medicines contribute to a lesser extent to the TFA problem. Yes, there are actually quite a few PFAS medicines. Even the popular antidepressant Prozac - Fluoxetine - is a PFAS and can break down to TFA.
But pesticides are the main source of TFA in areas with intensive agriculture. In regions with a high proportion of arable land, average TFA levels are significantly higher (1,660 ng/L) than in areas where agricultural inputs are not expected but precipitation is the dominant input pathway (670 ng/L), according to a study by the German Umwelt Bundesambt (UBA). [3] A very recent new publication indicates that ‘plant protection products’ are an important source of TFA in Europe, the US and China. [4]
Recent and alarming findings in Belgium tap water - including Brussels
Countries like Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden have been monitoring TFA in water for some years now. The results are far from reassuring. TFA is found in many places, sometimes in relatively high concentrations. The levels seem to be rising. Alarmed by reports from PAN Europe and members, the administration in the French speaking part of Belgium asked water company SWDE to monitor the drinking water in all 642 distribution zones. Only 44 zones were free of TFA (below the 50 ng/l lower measurement limit). In 36 zones the drinking water contained more than 1500 ng/l. The highest level was 3100 ng/l. [5]
The Brussels water company Vivaqua also presented TFA measurements. Only eight of the 287 measurements taken by Vivaqua since the beginning of 2021 showed concentrations below 500 ng/l. In 97 per cent of the measurements, values exceeded this future European standard for the total of PFAS in water (500 ng/l). In 170 measurements, concentrations of 1,000 ng/l or more were detected. The three highest concentrations were measured in the Daussoulx-Bosvoorde (1900 ng/l), Rode (1800 ng/l) and Callois (1700 ng/l) reservoirs. Water for thought for the EU politicians and regulators: most of them live and work in this area.
The situation in the Flemish part of Belgium with a lot of intensive agriculture might even be worse. So far no measurements are available. The government of Flanders has proposed an extremely high and unrealistic minimum limit of determination of 5000 nanograms per litre. This would mean that all levels below this would go unnoticed and the Flemish population would not know what they are exposed to. The official explanation is that the laboratories would not be able to accurately measure TFA. Highly unlikely for a technology loving region: where Holland, Germany and even Wallonia are able to measure from to 50 nanogram per litre, Flanders could only detect it if it is 100 times more. Soon the cat will be out of the bag when the first measurements arrive. Our bet: not good at all.
TFA in water all over Sweden
Our Swedish member the Society for Nature Conservation analysed PFAS including TFA in tap water from 63 places around the country, as well as surface water from 19 lakes and watercourses and a rainwater sample. Based on the samples analysed they conclude that PFAS is widespread throughout the country. TFA was found in much higher concentrations than other PFAS. Only one source of municipal water had no TFA above the detection limit, all municipal waters contained TFA in concentrations between 91 and 870 ng/l. [6]
We are exceeding a planetary boundary
A group of scientists has concluded that the TFA problem is threatening the global drinking water supply and recently proposed to add this to the list of planetary boundary threats. These are the safe limits for human pressure on critical processes which together maintain a stable and resilient Earth.
They conclude that: “TFA is a persistent and mobile substance that has been increasing in concentration within diverse environmental media, including rain, soils, human serum, plants, plant-based foods, and drinking water. Currently, TFA concentrations are orders of magnitude higher than those of other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). This accumulation is due to many PFAS having TFA as a transformation product, including several fluorinated gases (F-gases), pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and industrial chemicals, in addition to direct release of industrially produced TFA. Due to TFA’s extreme persistence and ongoing emissions, concentrations are increasing irreversibly. What remains less clear are the thresholds where irreversible effects on local or global scales occur. There are indications from mammalian toxicity studies that TFA is toxic to reproduction and that it exhibits liver toxicity. Ecotoxicity data are scarce, with most data being for aquatic systems; fewer data are available for terrestrial plants, where TFA bioaccumulates most readily. Collectively, these trends imply that TFA meets the criteria of a planetary boundary threat for novel entities because of increasing planetary-scale exposure, where potential irreversible disruptive impacts on vital earth system processes could occur. The rational response to this is to instigate binding actions to reduce the emissions of TFA and its many precursors.” [7]
No boundaries for Bayer
The top-selling herbicide Flufenacet is the most used PFAS pesticide in many countries, including France and Germany. It has been identified by the German Environment Authority Umweltbundesamt (UBA) as the main source of TFA. Alarmed by the evaluation of the toxicity by EU agencies EFSA and ECHA, Bayer felt the urge to issue a statement. The company acknowledged that a reevaluation is taking place, where Flufenacet is identified as a possible hormone disruptor and also as a source of TFA. According to the pesticide giant there is no problem and this is a normal routine. “All products offered by Bayer are safe for humans and the environment if they are used in accordance with the instructions for use,” according to a statement. [8]
What’s next?
The recent measurements and findings by scientists might be the tip of the iceberg. We allowed the PFAS, especially TFA, to fly under the radar for far too long. Since we cannot remove it, the only solution is an immediate ban of the sale and use of all chemicals that emit TFA. To start with the most obvious: the pesticides that are deliberately released into our environment by farmers who do not even know that they spray PFAS on their land, because it is not on the label. ‘Not necessary’, according to the pesticide producer umbrella organisation Croplife, ‘pesticides are tested and authorised by the authorities.’ [9]
And here lies the more fundamental root of the problem. We have not learned from our mistakes in the past. We still have the system where that allows chemicals to be used and after many years of destruction, discussion and doubts casted by the pesticide industry, we finally conclude that specific and proven problematic substances need to be banned. At that point it has already contaminated our environment and bodies for dozens of years. Especially in the case of water this is extra foolish, for there is no method to remove this dangerous substance from groundwater and it will pollute our water for generations to come.
The TFA problem underlines that our system to evaluate correctly the toxicity of chemicals and especially pesticides is failing, and we urgently need to repair it. The EU pesticide law is meant to give priority to the protection of health and environment. But it is implemented with a set of rules that is highly influenced by and very much in favour of the pesticide producers. The many flaws have been documented by the all-party PEST committee in the European Parliament, but so far only 15% of the committee’s recommendations have been implemented. [10] We have to revise our approach and methodologies. The precautionary principle should be leading. This means thorough research before exposing us and the environment to it. And the ban of groups of problematic chemicals like the PFAS pesticides.
Notes:
[1] The Hell they knew: Chemical Documents Analysis of Industry Influence on PFAS Science (Ann Global Health, June 2023)
[2] Proposal to European Chemical Agency ECHA to classify TFA as toxic to reproduction 1 B, June 2024, German chemical Agency.
[3] Trifluoracetat (TFA): Grundlagen für eine effektive Minimierung schaffen - Räumliche Analyse der Eintragspfade in den Wasserkreislauf, Umwelt Bundesamt Germany (UBA), July 2023
[4] Pesticides can be a substantial source of trifluoroacetate (TFA) to water resources, Environmental International November 2024
[5] Le TFA dans les eaux de distribution en Wallonie, Healt and Environment Wallonia, 17 Oktober 2024.
[6] PFAS i dricksvatten och ytvatten, Analysrapport, SSNC Oktober 2024
[7] The Global Threat from the Irreversible Accumulation of Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA), Hans Peter H. Arp, Andrea Gredelj, Juliane Glüge, Martin Scheringer and Ian T. Cousins, 30 Oktober 2024
[8] Bayer: Flufenacet absolut sicher, Top Agrar, 2 november 2024
[9] CropLife's Misleading Claims on PFAS Pesticides, PAN Europe February 2024
[10] Better Pesticide Regulation, overview by PAN Europe with link to the EU PEST committee
