Carlos de Prada is recognized as a leading Spanish expert on harmful compounds and author of Hogar sin Tóxicos, a book that mirrors his campaign to reveal a largely hidden truth about everyday exposures.
If PFAS is so harmful, why isn’t it banned?
According to the European Environment Agency, only about 0.5% of the more than 100,000 synthetic substances circulating in the EU have received a fairly complete toxicity assessment. The pace at which new substances enter the market far outstrips the rate at which their risks are properly evaluated and regulated. Regrettably, pressure from major industries is eroding existing safeguards, leaving EU regulation inadequate and under constant challenge.
Where do we find the most toxic substances in everyday life?
PFAS usage is widespread across many items people encounter daily. These substances appear in non-stick cookware, certain food packaging such as fast-food and pizza boxes, water-repellent or stain-resistant textiles, rugs and carpets, some cosmetics and personal care products, electronics, and more. The ubiquity of PFAS means exposure can happen in kitchens, living rooms, and even workplaces, often without obvious warnings.
Many of these substances act as endocrine disruptors—what does that mean?
Background from health organizations like the Spanish Public Health Association (SESPAS) notes that endocrine disruptors, including hormone-mimicking compounds, can exert effects at very low doses. Because of this, defining safe exposure thresholds is scientifically challenging for several clear reasons. While the EFSA and other agencies may still strive to set limit values, consensus on universally safe levels remains elusive and contested in many cases.
The most harmful, it seems, is the combined effect of these substances…
Risk assessments often measure effects for single substances, ignoring the so-called cocktail effect. Yet reports from organizations such as the World Health Organization and the European Commission acknowledge that these chemicals can produce effects at doses far below those typically used in testing. They also indicate that current risk assessment models require updating to reflect real-world exposure, including cumulative and interactive effects.
As explained, is there any chance the EU will suddenly ban thousands of these substances?
Yes, historically there has been movement away from item-by-item bans toward broader reforms. Once regulatory action targets one chemical, manufacturers often substitute it with a similar compound, continuing to pose risks. Industry resistance remains strong, with occasional calls for exemptions by arguing that some PFASs are deemed somehow necessary for safety or utility, complicating the path toward sweeping bans.