When it comes to tackling per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the so-called “forever chemicals” that accumulate in soil and drinking water, prevention must start with industry rather than relying on individual consumer choices, according to The Greens (déi gréng). They argue that placing responsibility solely on citizens is insufficient given the widespread presence of these substances and their potential impact on public health.
Green MPs Joëlle Welfring and Djuna Bernard recently had their own blood tested to draw attention to the issue. Despite being mindful of their personal consumption habits, both found traces of PFAS in their bloodstream.
In Bernard’s case, four out of thirteen PFAS categories were detected. While the levels remain within the precautionary range, she said the results were nonetheless concerning, particularly because these substances accumulate over a lifetime. Given their potential long-term health consequences, she believes the findings should not be taken lightly.
PFAS have been linked to impacts on the immune system and fertility. According to The Greens, individual consumer choices alone are insufficient, as these chemicals are present in a wide range of everyday products. Highly resistant to heat and water, PFAS are commonly found in non-stick cookware, certain fire-fighting foams, water-repellent paints, and even waterproof cosmetics.
A recent study by the Luxembourg Veterinary and Food Administration (ALVA) tested 204 food samples and detected traces of PFAS in 48 of them, roughly 23%, or nearly one in four.
The Greens are therefore calling on the government to take action at national level, particularly to strengthen protection of water resources. Former Environment Minister Joëlle Welfring said the latest findings were alarming and argued that the time had come to act, warning that the complexity of the issue must not be used as a pretext for doing nothing.
However, she and her colleagues stressed that a purely national response would not be sufficient. Green MEP Tilly Metz called for greater investment in research to develop equally durable but more sustainable alternatives.
She rejected claims that PFAS are indispensable for enabling the ecological transition, arguing that environmental progress cannot be built on harmful chemicals. In her view, companies should focus on innovation rather than lobbying, and safeguarding competitiveness must not mean protecting hazardous substances. Businesses that successfully adapt, she said, would ultimately be better positioned for the future.
Metz also acknowledged that the transition would require political support, as PFAS cannot be replaced overnight in every application. In the long term, however, she argued that reducing exposure would save money by preventing illness.
Given how difficult PFAS are to remove from the environment, delaying action would only result in more of these persistent molecules entering ecosystems before meaningful measures are taken.
