"PFAS do not constitute an abstract risk, but a tangible threat that calls for science-based responses through the most thorough analyses possible," explains Henri Klunge, chemical engineer and founder of Alcane Conseils.
They are called the "forever pollutants": per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are omnipresent in our daily lives and in our environments. Their chemical resistance, an undeniable industrial asset, has turned into a health and environmental nightmare. Yet, in September 2025, the Swiss Confederation decided to abandon a large-scale study on PFAS, arguing that its cost was too high.
This renunciation has provoked outrage and incomprehension within the scientific community, while the first Swiss data revealed worrying contamination. Why do PFAS represent a major issue? What was this federal study aiming to do? And what impact could this decision have on public health and nature protection?
PFAS constitute a vast family of synthetic chemical substances, used since the 1950s in many products: non-stick coatings for pans, firefighting foams, waterproof textiles, and even some cosmetics.
Their distinguishing feature? Very high chemical stability, due to their carbon chain bound to fluorine atoms, which makes them practically indestructible. This persistence has earned them the nickname "forever pollutants." Their massive use has led to worldwide contamination of soils, waters, wildlife and even humans, PFAS accumulating in living organisms.
Health outweighs short-term budgetary calculations. Transparency, scientific rigor and public responsibility are essential in the face of these "forever pollutants".
The danger of PFAS lies in their toxic effects on health and the environment. Exposure to these substances is associated with increased risks of cancers — notably kidney and testicular cancer — hormonal and immune disorders, liver and reproductive dysfunctions, as well as developmental disturbances in children.
Furthermore, PFAS sustainably contaminate groundwater and surface water, soils, and affect wildlife, causing reproductive abnormalities and decreased fertility in various species. At the international level, the threat posed by PFAS is taken very seriously, with increasingly strict regulations being implemented. Several countries have thus launched monitoring programs, usage restrictions, or even phased bans.
In response to this situation, Switzerland had launched, as early as 2018, an ambitious scientific study aiming to follow more than 100,000 volunteers for twenty years. The protocol foreseen regular blood and urine analyses designed, on the one hand, to accurately measure human exposure to PFAS and to understand their mechanisms of health impact, and, on the other hand, to inform public policies regarding the management, monitoring and regulation of these substances.
This study was also supposed to assess the presence of PFAS in waters, soils and local living organisms, through a national sampling network. Before its halt in September 2025, the first data collected had already highlighted high contamination and revealed negative effects on lung function, among other things. Admittedly, twenty years may seem long on a human scale; but given the persistence of PFAS, it is only a grain of sand on a beach.
The decision to stop this program — whose costs were estimated between 10 and 12 million francs — was justified by the federal authorities mainly for budgetary reasons, the complexity of the project and the observation that other studies, particularly European ones, could already cover part of the issues. Among the arguments advanced were also significant administrative constraints and some overlap with other scientific initiatives.
The fight against PFAS pollution is a long-distance race, where lost time is paid for in human lives and in lasting degradation of ecosystems.
The abandonment of this study appears to me to be a major mistake. It deprives the country of a valuable source of direct data, limits transparency about the real exposure of the Swiss population to these pollutants and weakens the ability to steer effective and sustainable prevention measures. International coordination cannot replace a detailed and contextualized understanding of local realities.
PFAS do not constitute an abstract risk, but a tangible threat that requires responses based on science, through the most in-depth analyses possible. The role of the state is precisely to protect the population and the environment. Who better than the state to support and set up a large-scale independent scientific study capable of providing useful results for its public health policy, but also for the scientific community — whether to develop alternatives or to reduce the consequences of exposure to these substances?
Health outweighs short-term budgetary calculations. Transparency, scientific rigor and public responsibility are essential in the face of these "forever pollutants". Switzerland should instead redouble its efforts to fill its gaps rather than turn away from them. If the Confederation definitively renounces this study, one can imagine its position when new harmful substances are discovered — and surely others will be discovered in the years to come.
Moreover, Swiss standards are among the strictest in Europe, if not the world. This can be seen as a good thing, provided they are based on solid scientific foundations; without that, they risk appearing disconnected from technical reality. Ultimately, following the adage "the best waste is the one you do not produce," a possible ban on marketing PFAS will be all the more legitimate if it is based on reliable data.
A collective awakening is therefore needed: protecting health and nature against PFAS cannot be sacrificed on the altar of financial or bureaucratic requirements. As Frédéric Mairy (State Councillor, Social Democratic Party — PS) pointed out after the announcement: "Prevention is an investment to avoid immense social costs."
The fight against PFAS pollution is a long-distance race, where lost time is paid for in human lives and in lasting degradation of ecosystems. Doing nothing would be tantamount to abandoning public health and the planet to an invisible but formidable enemy, which only vigilance, science and political will can overcome.
This article has been automatically translated using AI. If you notice any errors, please don't hesitate to contact us.
"If the Federal Council is now considering abolishing the program — or at least withdrawing the federal contribution — it is mainly because of the windfall effects it generates," explains Philippe Thalmann, professor of environmental economics at EPFL.
"Today, 70% of our results come from abroad, while 70% of our investments are made in our historic service territory in Switzerland," says Cédric Christmann, Chief Executive Officer of Primeo Energie.
Interview with Philip Mäder, head of media relations at BKW.
At this stage, the investigations reveal an overvoltage problem that led to the failure, but do not yet allow its root cause to be identified.