The Netherlands wants a European ban on non-stick coating in a frying pan

Photo by Adam Dachis on Unsplash

There must be a European ban on the admission of pathogenic artificial products such as the chemical PFAS. The Dutch Minister for the Environment, Stientje van Veldhoven, has proposed this to her EU colleagues in Brussels.

An admission ban (restriction proposal) prohibits PFAS and other similar products in all non-essential applications. Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Belgium, Austria, Italy, and France supported the Dutch proposal.

Dutch minister Van Veldhoven said in a response: “I think we should close the valve for PFAS. The teflon layer may be useful in a pan, but at the same time these substances never break down in our environment and can be harmful to our health. PFAS still enters our country iedere day on all sides. We cannot solve this on our own and must tackle the problem throughout Europe. "

In 2018 it was announced that PFAS is present in the soil in minute quantities throughout the country. PFAS is the collective name for some 6,000 man-made substances, some of which are probably carcinogenic. It is clear that once in the environment the substances never break down again. The stuff is used in, among other things, the non-stick coating in frying pans, rain-repellent clothing and reflectors

When it was recently announced that the amount of PFAS in the soil far exceeded the permitted criteria, the Dutch government introduced a ban on transport of contaminated soil. As a result, the new building came to a halt almost everywhere. The government then broadened the criteria but at the same time decided to work on a EU-wide ban.

A special feature of the proposed restriction proposal is that all harmful PFAS substances, some 6,000 in total, will be banned for the first time in one go. This prevents one PFAS from being replaced by another counterpart.

It is expected that it will take five years for the ban to take effect. The first step is for the Netherlands to describe why the restriction is needed, including risks, alternatives, costs, and expected benefits for the environment and health. Then it is the turn of the European Commission and ultimately the EU government and the European Parliament.