PFAS: How Miracle Chemicals Became One of the Greatest Chemical Scandals in History
Laura Chrobok 15.07.2026
PFAS are regarded as one of the greatest environmental and public health challenges of our time. These so-called “forever chemicals” have already been detected in drinking water, soil, rivers, wildlife and in the blood of the vast majority of the population. At the same time, regulatory authorities around the world are tightening their risk assessments and working towards far-reaching restrictions on this group of substances.
What are PFAS? How and why were they developed? How did what began as a technological success story become one of the greatest chemical scandals in history? And why are the consequences still being felt?
PFAS: The “Forever Chemicals”
PFAS is the abbreviation for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. They comprise a large group of several thousand synthetic chemicals.
What these substances have in common is an exceptionally stable bond between carbon and fluorine atoms. This is one of the strongest bonds in organic chemistry and gives PFAS properties that made them appear almost indispensable for numerous industrial applications over many decades. They are resistant to water, grease and dirt, highly heat-resistant and extremely resistant to many chemical influences (OECD, 2021; Buck et al., 2011).
What initially seemed like an advantage is, in reality, the major problem: many PFAS break down only extremely slowly — or not at all — in the environment. They remain in soil, water, animals and humans. They have rightly become known as “forever chemicals” (OECD, 2022; Sunderland et al., 2019).
The Discovery of PFAS
The history of PFAS began with an accidental discovery in 1938. While conducting research for the chemical company DuPont, chemist Roy J. Plunkett discovered the plastic polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE). The material proved to be exceptionally resistant to heat and chemicals and almost frictionless. It later became known worldwide under the brand name Teflon.
During the Second World War, PTFE was initially used in military and industrial applications. In the decades that followed, the chemical industry developed numerous additional PFAS compounds. Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in particular found their way into an ever-growing range of products because of their water-, grease- and dirt-repellent properties — for example, non-stick coatings, outdoor textiles, food packaging, firefighting foams and numerous industrial manufacturing processes.
(Sunderland et al., 2019; Buck et al., 2011; Plunkett, 1986)
Hardly anyone questioned their usefulness. Yet what was celebrated at the time as a technological breakthrough developed, decades later, into an enormous global problem.
From Technological Progress to Chemical Scandal
For many years, DuPont released PFOA into the environment from its Washington Works plant. Among other things, the chemical was discharged into the Ohio River, released into the atmosphere and disposed of together with production waste in landfill sites. In this way, it entered soil, groundwater and surface water — and ultimately the drinking water of the surrounding population.
The problem first became public in the late 1990s in the U.S. state of West Virginia. Cattle farmer Wilbur Tennant noticed that numerous animals on his farm became seriously ill or died. He suspected a connection with a nearby landfill operated by DuPont, where chemical waste had been disposed of for many years. After initially finding that no authority was willing to take responsibility, Tennant turned to attorney Robert Bilott, who began an extensive investigation and, through legal proceedings, compelled DuPont to hand over internal company documents.
These documents revealed that, as early as the 1960s and 1970s, the company had indications that perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) was extremely persistent, could accumulate in the human body and might pose health risks. At the same time, the documents showed that PFOA had affected not only DuPont employees but had also entered the bodies of local residents through emissions and contaminated drinking water.
The documents further revealed that, by 1981, DuPont already had indications of possible prenatal developmental abnormalities associated with PFOA. These concerns arose following animal studies conducted by 3M, another chemical company working with PFAS, in which developmental disorders had been observed. At the same time, DuPont documented congenital abnormalities in the newborn children of two female employees. In addition, PFOA was detected in the umbilical cord blood of at least one newborn, demonstrating that the substance could cross the placenta. These findings were among the earliest warning signs that later fuelled substantial criticism of the company's handling of PFOA.
(Bilott, 2019; Richter et al., 2018; Grandjean & Clapp, 2015; EPA, 2005)
The case ultimately led to one of the largest environmental lawsuits in U.S. history. More than 69,000 residents participated in the C8 Health Project, providing blood samples and health data for scientific research. Based on these data, the independent C8 Science Panel spent several years evaluating the relationship between PFOA exposure and various diseases. The scientists concluded that there was a “probable link” between PFOA exposure and six diseases.
These are:
· kidney cancer
· testicular cancer
· ulcerative colitis
· thyroid disease
· pregnancy-induced hypertension
· elevated cholesterol
(C8 Science Panel, 2012–2013).
The findings of the C8 Science Panel marked a turning point in PFAS research. For the first time, extensive data from a large population were available to systematically investigate the relationship between long-term PFAS exposure and health risks. The events in the United States played a decisive role in prompting regulatory authorities, scientists and policymakers to fundamentally reassess this group of chemicals (Sunderland et al., 2019; Grandjean & Clapp, 2015).
The United States as a Warning? — PFAS Scandals in Germany
Despite the warning signs emerging from the United States, many regarded these events as the consequence of a specific American industrial site. It was not until the PFT scandal in North Rhine-Westphalia in 2006 that comparable contamination in Germany came into the public spotlight.
Concentrations of perfluorinated compounds in the River Ruhr and in the drinking water supplied by several waterworks were found to be unusually high. Extensive investigations revealed that PFAS-contaminated soil conditioners had been spread on agricultural land in the Sauerland region. From there, the chemicals entered the soil, rivers, groundwater and, ultimately, drinking water. Regions particularly affected included Arnsberg, Brilon and Rüthen. Comprehensive investigations by regulatory authorities and research institutions followed. To this day, the incident is regarded as one of Germany's most significant PFAS scandals (Skutlarek et al., 2006; Hölzer et al., 2008).
In the years that followed, PFAS contamination was identified at numerous additional locations, and blood tests in local residents revealed elevated PFAS concentrations. In many cases, these findings were linked to the decades-long use of PFAS-containing firefighting foams at fire service training grounds, airports and military sites. It became increasingly clear that PFAS were not a regional problem but a truly global one: Today, PFAS can be detected in the blood of almost all populations studied (ATSDR, 2026; Umweltbundesamt, 2024; EEA, 2023).
PFAS: European Legislation
Today, PFAS are monitored far more closely in Germany and throughout the European Union than they were only a few years ago.
An important milestone was the revision of the EU Drinking Water Directive in 2020. Under this directive, Member States have been required, since 12 January 2026, to comply with the established parametric values for “Total PFAS” and the “Sum of PFAS”, as well as to monitor PFAS in accordance with the specified requirements (European Commission, 2020; European Commission, 2026).
In addition, new European rules for the protection of surface water and groundwater entered into force in May 2026. These rules update the lists of relevant pollutants, introduce stricter monitoring requirements for certain PFAS and must be transposed into national law by the end of 2027 (European Commission, 2026).
At the same time, since 2023, the European Union has been assessing a comprehensive proposal to restrict a large proportion of the PFAS group under the REACH Regulation (ECHA, 2023). The aim is to prevent further environmental contamination by these substances wherever possible and to limit their use to applications for which (allegedly) no suitable alternatives are currently available. (In our upcoming article, we will discuss why and how the pharmaceutical industry continues to use PFAS.)
Health Risks Associated with PFAS
Thousands of scientific studies on PFAS have now been published worldwide. Current evidence suggests that, in addition to the diseases already mentioned, higher exposure to certain PFAS may also be associated with a reduced immune response and changes in liver function. Furthermore, intensive research is underway to determine the health effects of numerous other PFAS compounds, many of which have so far been investigated far less extensively (NASEM, 2022; EFSA, 2020; ATSDR, 2021).
PFAS: Chemicals with Consequences for Generations
PFAS were developed to make products more durable, longer-lasting and more effective. What once sounded highly desirable has turned into one of the greatest pollution problems of our time. The PFAS scandals illustrate how regrettably long it can take before regulatory consequences are finally introduced.
Today, PFAS are regarded worldwide as one of the greatest challenges facing environmental and public health protection. The substances that have already been released will continue to affect both us and our environment for many decades to come.
FAQ — (Further) Frequently Asked Questions About PFAS
1. Can PFAS be eliminated from the human body?
Yes, but the rate at which this occurs varies depending on the specific PFAS compound. Some well-studied PFAS, such as PFOA and PFOS, can remain in the human body for several years before their concentrations decline significantly. Other members of the PFAS group are eliminated more rapidly (ATSDR, 2021; EFSA, 2020).
2. Can PFAS be completely removed from drinking water?
Yes, this is technically possible, but it is complex. Activated carbon and ion-exchange technologies, in particular, can effectively remove many PFAS. However, because this group comprises several thousand different compounds, no single treatment method is equally effective under all conditions (WHO, 2022; UBA, 2024).
3. Why are PFAS not banned worldwide?
Suitable alternatives are already available for many applications. However, in certain fields — such as parts of medicine, the semiconductor industry and some specialised industrial applications — PFAS are currently still considered difficult to replace by regulatory authorities and expert bodies. For this reason, the European Union is discussing restrictions that include targeted exemptions (ECHA, 2023).
4. Can I find out whether I have PFAS in my body?
Yes, specialised blood tests can determine the concentrations of individual PFAS. However, these tests are not part of routine medical care and generally do not allow conclusions to be drawn as to whether existing health complaints are attributable to PFAS exposure (NASEM, 2022).
Further information — also on many other topics — can be found on our blog, in our “Medizinskandale” book series and in the “Codex Humanus” — the fifth volume of which was recently published. Feel free to visit our online shop.
Sources:
· OECD (2021): “Reconciling Terminology of the Universe of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS),” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
· Buck, R. C. et al. (2011): “Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the Environment: Terminology, Classification, and Origins,” Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management.
· OECD (2022): “PFASs and Alternatives in Food Packaging (Paper and Paperboard): Report on the Commercial Availability and Current Uses,” Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
· Sunderland, E. M. et al. (2019): “A Review of the Pathways of Human Exposure to Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) and Present Understanding of Health Effects.” Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology.
· Plunkett, R. J. (1986): “The History of Polytetrafluoroethylene: Discovery and Development.” In: Seymour, R. B.; Kirshenbaum, G. S.: High Performance Polymers: Their Origin and Development. Proceedings of the Symposium on the History of High Performance Polymers at the American Chemical Society Meeting, New York, April 1986. Elsevier, New York.
· Bilott, R. (2019): “Exposure: Poisoned Water, Corporate Greed, and One Lawyer's Twenty-Year Battle against DuPont,” Atria Books.
· Richter, L. et al. (2018): “Non-Stick Science: Sixty Years of Research and (In)Action on PFAS,” Social Studies of Science.
· Grandjean, P.; Clapp, R. (2015): “Perfluorinated Alkyl Substances: Emerging Insights into Health Risks,” New Solutions.
· EPA (2005): “Draft Risk Assessment of the Potential Human Health Effects Associated with Exposure to Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Its Salts,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
· C8 Science Panel (2012–2013): “Probable Link Reports.”
· Skutlarek, D. et al. (2006): “Perfluorinated Surfactants in Surface and Drinking Waters,” Environmental Science and Pollution Research.
· Hölzer, J. et al. (2008): “Biomonitoring of Perfluorinated Compounds in Children and Adults Exposed to Perfluorooctanoate-Contaminated Drinking Water,” Environmental Health Perspectives.
· ATSDR (2026): “Human Exposure: PFAS Information for Clinicians.”
· Umweltbundesamt (2024): “PFAS – Per- und polyfluorierte Alkylsubstanzen.”
· European Environment Agency (2023): “Emerging Chemical Risks in Europe – PFAS.”
· European Commission (2020): “Directive (EU) 2020/2184 on the Quality of Water Intended for Human Consumption.”
· European Commission (2026): “New EU-wide Protections Against PFAS in Drinking Water Come into Effect.”
· European Commission (2026): “New EU Law to Better Protect Water Enters into Force.”
· European Chemicals Agency (2023): “Annex XV Restriction Report – Proposal for a Restriction of PFAS.”
· National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022): “Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up.”
· EFSA (2020): “Risk to Human Health Related to the Presence of Perfluoroalkyl Substances in Food,” EFSA Journal.
· ATSDR (2021): “Toxicological Profile for Perfluoroalkyls.”
· World Health Organization (2022): “PFAS in Drinking-water.”