Fact: Linked to health risk
PFAS is a group of hard-to-degrade chemicals that are used for their water, grease and dirt-repellent properties in, for example, clothing, make-up, food packaging, ski wax and fire foam.
People are exposed to PFAS via drinking water and food, among other things. Research shows that there is a connection between PFAS levels in the blood and impaired immune system, elevated cholesterol levels and liver damage. Some increase in risk of kidney cancer and testicular cancer has also been observed.
Some PFAS, such as PFOS, PFOA and PFNA, are classified as reproductive harm and suspected carcinogens.
The EU’s food authority, Efsa, has made a risk assessment of how much PFAS a person is expected to be able to ingest without health risks.
Efsa concluded that the total intake of PFAS (from food, drinking water, etc.) should not exceed 4.4 nanograms of PFAS per kilogram of body weight per week.
Based on that minimum limit value requirement, EU countries can set their own limit values for PFAS in drinking water.
From 1 January 2026, the Swedish Food Agency has set a new limit value for PFAS in drinking water of 4 nanograms of PFAS per liter of drinking water. Previously, the limit was 90 nanograms per liter.
Some PFAS are now banned in the EU (and thus in Sweden). Right now, a proposal is on the EU’s table to limit all PFAS (that is, several thousand different chemicals) in the EU.
Sources: The Nature Conservation Society, the Swedish Chemicals Agency, the Swedish Food Agency and the Karolinska Institutet.
They are found in cleaning agents, firefighting foam, textiles, food packaging, frying pans, certain foods, in a number of other products and not least in our drinking water.
According to the EU’s food safety authority, Efsa, the difficult-to-degrade PFAS chemicals have proven to be more harmful than first thought. Therefore, in three years, the Swedish Food Agency will introduce a new, lower limit value for how high a PFAS content may be in our drinking water in Sweden. A value that the drinking water in several of the country’s municipalities still exceeds.
Several of them are therefore now working feverishly to find ways to reduce the levels in the drinking water, because the traditional purification methods do not work on PFAS.
– Another type of purification is needed, which will also be significantly more expensive, says Mattias Leijon, CEO, Laholmsbuktens VA AB, in Halmstad, one of the municipalities that has too high a PFAS content in the drinking water.
Price decisive
Right now, the municipality is testing a chemical method, which will be evaluated at the end of the year and so far seems promising. The decisive question, however, will be what it costs.
“If it turns out to be too expensive, there is a risk that we will have to close some water sources instead,” says Mattias Leijon.
The fact that the method has been tested at other facilities and is established in, among other places, the USA, does not help.
— The composition of PFAS chemicals means that a method can work differently effectively at different treatment plants. That’s why you have to try it at each unique facility, says Mattias Leijon.
How high the cost of the purification method will be revealed at the end of the year when the pilot project is completed. The bill will most likely fall on the drinking water consumers, he believes.
— In the end, it will be the municipal politicians who have to decide whether the method is worth it. But we must ensure that we have drinking water that meets the requirements, says Mattias Leijon.
Must reprioritize
The cost of dealing with PFAS is only part of the financial challenges the municipality is grappling with in the existing VA system which, like so many other parts of the country, needs to be renewed.
Just Halmstad municipality has set aside a framework of around SEK 900 million for this over the next five years, money that comes from VA customers in the form of fees.
— But the PFAS problem requires more money, special decisions and additional investments. Or the municipality may re-prioritize within the framework.
TT: In that case, what must be prioritized?
— Maybe to renew lines, but it’s hard to speculate. It’s up to the politicians if they want to push for more money or re-prioritise. It is also possible to cover such costs through tax increases, but that is a political issue, notes Mattias Leijon, and adds:
— But if we continued to distribute water that does not meet the requirements, we would likely be prosecuted.
Calls for government support
Therese Börjesson, head of the Environmental Toxics department at the Norwegian Nature Conservation Society, sees a risk in the cost of the PFAS cleanup becoming so heavy for the municipalities that it is postponed, delayed and thus affects people’s health.
— We have places in Sweden where drinking water with excessively high PFAS levels has been drunk for a long time. Here you need to go in as soon as possible and lower them, she says.
The Nature Conservation Society has long tried to put pressure, both on the previous government and in the budget negotiations that are now underway, to get the state to help especially smaller municipalities that are in a tough financial situation.
“Where you live in the country should not be decisive for whether you have drinking water with high or low PFAS,” says Therese Börjesson.
Ahead of the autumn budget, the government has not yet wanted to say how it will handle the issue, only that talks are ongoing about it.
TT: It is about a new limit value that is being introduced. Why would it suddenly be dangerous to wait for the purification?
— Now we know based on new findings how dangerous PFAS is. Then it is important that as many people as possible do not drink more than safe levels of PFAS, says Therese Börjesson.